Literature DB >> 31066937

Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: Mean follow-up of 15 years.

Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic1, Jenö Kisch1, Christel Larsson1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively assess the clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns and the supporting implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients treated with implant-supported single crowns at one specialist clinic. Implant and prosthesis failure, and mechanical/technical complications (ceramic fracture/chipping; crown loss of retention/mobility; crown failure/fracture; loosening/loss/fracture of prosthetic screw; and implant failure/fracture) were the outcomes analyzed. Any condition/situation that led to the removal/replacement of crowns was considered prosthesis failure.
RESULTS: A total of 438 patients with 567 crowns were included. Mean ± SD follow-up of 183.4 ± 69.3 months. A total of 37 implants (6.5%) and 54 crowns (9.5%) failed. If only technical problems were considered, the crown failure rate decreased to 4.1% (23/567). Most common reasons for crown failure: esthetic issue (n = 12), crown constantly mobile (n = 9), change to another type of prosthesis together with other implants (n = 8), crown fracture (n = 7), and crown in infraposition in comparison with adjacent teeth (n = 7). The odds of crown failure were shown to be statistically significantly higher for the following factors: younger patients, maxillary crowns, and screw-retained crowns. Loose prosthetic screw was much more prevalent in screw-retained than in cemented crowns. Ceramic fracture/chipping was more prevalent in screw-retained crowns, maxillae, females. Crown fracture was more prevalent in ceramic crowns, screw-retained crowns, maxillae, posterior region, females. However, these differences were statistically significant only for crown fractures in females.
CONCLUSIONS: The odds of crown failure were significant for some factors, but one must keep in mind that non-technical complications are as common as technical ones as reasons for the replacement of implant-supported single crowns.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dental implant; fixed prosthesis; implant-supported single crown; survival; technical complications

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31066937     DOI: 10.1111/clr.13454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  2 in total

1.  [Clinical observation of the curative effect after 5-year follow-up of single tooth implant-supported restorations in the posterior region].

Authors:  F Liang; M J Wu; L D Zou
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2021-10-18

Review 2.  A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.

Authors:  Bjarni Elvar Pjetursson; Irena Sailer; Andrey Latyshev; Kerstin Rabel; Ralf-Joachim Kohal; Duygu Karasan
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 5.021

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.