OBJECTIVE: The aims of this clinical study were to determine differences in plaque accumulation and to compare the effects of reinforced composite resin and titanium on peri-implant soft-tissue and residual-ridge inflammation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 19 subjects were enrolled in this clinical trial; 10 jaws had implant-supported fixed prostheses with composite resin mucosal surfaces, 11 jaws had titanium prostheses fabricated by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM), and 6 jaws had acrylic resin prostheses. Plaque area indexes (PAIs) were calculated on the mucosal surfaces of prostheses, and blood flow in the mucosa was captured with two-dimensional laser speckle imaging to evaluate residual-ridge inflammation. Subjects were educated about oral hygiene and reevaluated after 3 months. RESULTS: The PAI was significantly lower on titanium mucosal surfaces than on reinforced composite resin surfaces at the initial and second measurements (initial, P = 0.0052; second, P = 0.0044). Self-curing acrylic resin surfaces did not show any significant difference when compared with reinforced resin or titanium. Blood flow was significantly lower in mucosa contacting titanium surfaces than in mucosa contacting reinforced composite resin surfaces at the initial measurement (P = 0.0330). Although subjects were instructed about plaque control after the initial measurement, PAIs indicated that the difference between the two materials could not be overcome. CONCLUSION: In terms of oral hygiene and mucosal inflammation, titanium was superior to reinforced composite resin in implant-supported fixed prostheses for edentulous subjects, and the short-term use of acrylic resin was superior to the use of reinforced composite resin.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this clinical study were to determine differences in plaque accumulation and to compare the effects of reinforced composite resin and titanium on peri-implant soft-tissue and residual-ridge inflammation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 19 subjects were enrolled in this clinical trial; 10 jaws had implant-supported fixed prostheses with composite resin mucosal surfaces, 11 jaws had titanium prostheses fabricated by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM), and 6 jaws had acrylic resin prostheses. Plaque area indexes (PAIs) were calculated on the mucosal surfaces of prostheses, and blood flow in the mucosa was captured with two-dimensional laser speckle imaging to evaluate residual-ridge inflammation. Subjects were educated about oral hygiene and reevaluated after 3 months. RESULTS: The PAI was significantly lower on titanium mucosal surfaces than on reinforced composite resin surfaces at the initial and second measurements (initial, P = 0.0052; second, P = 0.0044). Self-curing acrylic resin surfaces did not show any significant difference when compared with reinforced resin or titanium. Blood flow was significantly lower in mucosa contacting titanium surfaces than in mucosa contacting reinforced composite resin surfaces at the initial measurement (P = 0.0330). Although subjects were instructed about plaque control after the initial measurement, PAIs indicated that the difference between the two materials could not be overcome. CONCLUSION: In terms of oral hygiene and mucosal inflammation, titanium was superior to reinforced composite resin in implant-supported fixed prostheses for edentulous subjects, and the short-term use of acrylic resin was superior to the use of reinforced composite resin.