Literature DB >> 23304689

Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial.

Paolo Vigolo1, Sabrina Mutinelli, Andrea Givani, Edoardo Stellini.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the long-term clinical outcome of cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients presenting with single-tooth bilateral edentulous sites in the canine/molar region with adequate bone width, similar bone height at the implant sites, and an occlusal scheme that allowed for the establishment of identical occlusal cusp/fossa contacts were treated. Each patient received two identical implants according to a split-mouth design. One side was randomly selected to be restored with a cemented implant-supported single crown, and the other was restored with a screw-retained implant-supported single crown. Outcome measures were implant success, complications, marginal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue health.
RESULTS: Ten years after initial loading, 2 patients moved away and were lost to follow-up. Two implants placed in the same patient failed 5 years after their insertion; the remaining 30 implants survived, resulting in a cumulative implant success rate of 93.7%. No complication occurred. The mean marginal bone resorption at 10 years after implant placement, measured on intraoral radiographs, was 1.1 ± 0.2 mm for both types of restorations. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to peri-implant marginal bone level at the 10-year follow-up appointment (T2) (P = 0.58); at the 4-year follow-up appointment (T1) a statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.01), but this was not considered clinically relevant (mean difference: -0.06 mm). The status of the soft tissue around the implants remained stable over the evaluation period. No statistically significant difference was identified for the facial keratinised gingiva between the two groups at T1 (P = 0.10) or at T2 (P = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that there was no evidence of a significant difference in the clinical behaviour of the peri-implant marginal bone or of the peri-implant soft tissues when cemented or screw-retained single-tooth implant restorations were provided.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23304689

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol        ISSN: 1756-2406            Impact factor:   3.123


  8 in total

1.  Survey of Screw-Retained versus Cement-Retained Implant Restorations in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Alaa Makke; Abdulwahed Homsi; Montaha Guzaiz; Abdulrahman Almalki
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2017-10-30

2.  Influence of abutment design on retention of metal copings cemented to implants.

Authors:  Albano Porto da Cunha; Glauco Pereira Moysés; Ana Christina Claro Neves; Rafael Pino Vitti; Flávia Cardoso da Rosa Goulart; Laís Regiane da Siva-Concílio
Journal:  Acta Biomater Odontol Scand       Date:  2016-01-26

Review 3.  Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jatin K Jain; Rajesh Sethuraman; Sameer Chauhan; Piyush Javiya; Shreya Srivastava; Rutvik Patel; Bhagyashri Bhalani
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep

4.  Restoration of converging implants: Restorative complexity to facilitate retrievability.

Authors:  James Dudley
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2020-10-08

5.  Immediate prosthesis over implants retained using abutments with flexible screws: A preliminary study.

Authors:  David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Blanca Serra-Pastor; José-Carlos Balaguer-Martí; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; Rubén Agustín-Panadero
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-12-01

Review 6.  Complications in implant dentistry.

Authors:  Ayesha Hanif; Saima Qureshi; Zeeshan Sheikh; Haroon Rashid
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

7.  Influence of Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique on Peri-Implant Tissues; Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial with Three-Year Follow-Up. Part I: Hard Tissues.

Authors:  Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Naia Bustamante-Hernández; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho; Antonio Fons-Font; Lucía Fernández-Estevan
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Aesthetic Outcomes and Peri-Implant Health of Angled Screw Retained Implant Restorations Compared with Cement Retained Crowns: Medium Term Follow-Up.

Authors:  Livia Nastri; Ludovica Nucci; Vincenzo Grassia; Rino Miraldi
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2021-05-16
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.