Rubén Agustín-Panadero1, Sergio Soriano-Valero2, Carlos Labaig-Rueda3, Lucía Fernández-Estevan4, Ma Fernanda Solá-Ruíz3. 1. Adjunct Professor, Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 2. Private practice, Valencia, Spain. 3. Professor, Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. Adjunct Professor, Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: lucia.fernandez-estevan@uv.es.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because of market demand for innovation, new restoration materials have been introduced without adequate testing; clinical failure may be the consequence, and clinical studies are needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the biological and mechanical clinical behavior of implant-supported resin-modified ceramic crowns compared with that of metal-ceramic crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two participants aged between 35 and 65 years received single implants in posterior edentulous sites. After the osseointegration period, half of the implants (selected randomly) (n=25) were restored with metal-ceramic crowns (MC group) and the other half with resin-modified ceramic crowns (RMC group) bonded with dual-polymerized resin cement onto titanium abutments. The biomechanical state of the restorations and implants was analyzed. RESULTS: Mean peri-implant bone loss after 5 years of functional life was 0.3 ±0.6 mm. The implant clinical survival rate was 98%. RMC crowns had a survival rate of 70%, whereas MC crowns had a 100% survival rate. RMC crowns had more mechanical complications than the MC group (P<.001). Peri-implant bone loss showed no significant differences between crown type (P=.175). CONCLUSIONS: All peri-implant bone loss values were within the range considered acceptable. Metal-ceramic crowns showed better mechanical behavior than resin-modified ceramic crowns. Biological responses of peri-implant tissue would appear to be independent of the type of cemented crown.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because of market demand for innovation, new restoration materials have been introduced without adequate testing; clinical failure may be the consequence, and clinical studies are needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the biological and mechanical clinical behavior of implant-supported resin-modified ceramic crowns compared with that of metal-ceramic crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two participants aged between 35 and 65 years received single implants in posterior edentulous sites. After the osseointegration period, half of the implants (selected randomly) (n=25) were restored with metal-ceramic crowns (MC group) and the other half with resin-modified ceramic crowns (RMC group) bonded with dual-polymerized resin cement onto titanium abutments. The biomechanical state of the restorations and implants was analyzed. RESULTS: Mean peri-implant bone loss after 5 years of functional life was 0.3 ±0.6 mm. The implant clinical survival rate was 98%. RMC crowns had a survival rate of 70%, whereas MC crowns had a 100% survival rate. RMC crowns had more mechanical complications than the MC group (P<.001). Peri-implant bone loss showed no significant differences between crown type (P=.175). CONCLUSIONS: All peri-implant bone loss values were within the range considered acceptable. Metal-ceramic crowns showed better mechanical behavior than resin-modified ceramic crowns. Biological responses of peri-implant tissue would appear to be independent of the type of cemented crown.
Authors: Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Irene Bermúdez-Mulet; Lucía Fernández-Estevan; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; Rocío Marco-Pitarch; Marina García-Selva; Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho; Raquel León-Martínez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: María Costa Castillo; Martín Laguna Martos; Rocío Marco Pitarch; Marina García Selva; Silvia Del Cid Rodríguez; Carla Fons-Badal; Rubén Agustín Panadero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390