PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare results after 1 and 3 years when single crowns supported by CerAdapt (test) ceramic abutments or CeraOne (control) titanium abutments were loaded. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material was divided into two groups: in group A, 69 (34 test, 35 control) abutments/crowns from all involved clinics were followed for 1 year; and in group B, 20 (10 test, 10 control) abutments/crowns from one of the clinics were followed for 3 years. RESULTS: No implant failed, giving a cumulative success rate of 100% for the implants. Two CerAdapt abutments in group A fractured, giving a cumulative success rate of 93% for the CerAdapt and 100% for the CeraOne abutments after 1 year. No abutment failed in group B, giving a cumulative success rate of 100% both for the CerAdapt and the CeraOne abutments between 1 and 3 years. The CerAdapt fractures might have been due to the fact that the abutments were impaired through too-extensive preparation and/or had been exposed to a too-high bending moment. Almost no marginal bone loss was recorded, indicating a stable bone situation both at CerAdapt and CeraOne abutments on single-tooth implants. Healthy conditions, with a relatively stable level of the periimplant mucosa in relation to the abutment/crown, were recorded for soft tissues both at CerAdapt and CeraOne abutments. Both clinicians and patients rated the esthetic result as excellent for practically all cases. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the esthetic possibilities and the safety of single-tooth replacement when accepted treatment concepts are followed and documented components are used. The tested abutments worked well, although the fractured CerAdapt abutments indicate that ceramic abutments are more sensitive to handling procedures than the titanium abutments.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare results after 1 and 3 years when single crowns supported by CerAdapt (test) ceramic abutments or CeraOne (control) titanium abutments were loaded. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material was divided into two groups: in group A, 69 (34 test, 35 control) abutments/crowns from all involved clinics were followed for 1 year; and in group B, 20 (10 test, 10 control) abutments/crowns from one of the clinics were followed for 3 years. RESULTS: No implant failed, giving a cumulative success rate of 100% for the implants. Two CerAdapt abutments in group A fractured, giving a cumulative success rate of 93% for the CerAdapt and 100% for the CeraOne abutments after 1 year. No abutment failed in group B, giving a cumulative success rate of 100% both for the CerAdapt and the CeraOne abutments between 1 and 3 years. The CerAdaptfractures might have been due to the fact that the abutments were impaired through too-extensive preparation and/or had been exposed to a too-high bending moment. Almost no marginal bone loss was recorded, indicating a stable bone situation both at CerAdapt and CeraOne abutments on single-tooth implants. Healthy conditions, with a relatively stable level of the periimplant mucosa in relation to the abutment/crown, were recorded for soft tissues both at CerAdapt and CeraOne abutments. Both clinicians and patients rated the esthetic result as excellent for practically all cases. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the esthetic possibilities and the safety of single-tooth replacement when accepted treatment concepts are followed and documented components are used. The tested abutments worked well, although the fractured CerAdapt abutments indicate that ceramic abutments are more sensitive to handling procedures than the titanium abutments.
Authors: Christian F J Stappert; Marta Baldassarri; Yu Zhang; Felix Hänssler; Elizabeth D Rekow Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2011-09-05 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Katharina Kuhn; Heike Rudolph; Michael Graf; Matthias Moldan; Shaoxia Zhou; Martin Udart; Andrea Böhmler; Ralph G Luthardt Journal: Trials Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 2.279