Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design
- 212 Downloads
The objective of the present study was to compare the clinical performance of screw-retained, monolithic, zirconia, and cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) implant crowns.
Materials and methods
In a prospective, randomized, clinical, split-mouth trial, 22 patients’ bilateral premolar or molar single-gap were restored with either screw-retained (test group) or cemented supraconstruction (control group). Clinical parameters, soft-tissue health, crestal bone-level changes, technical complications, and patient’s subjective feelings were recorded during a follow-up period of 12 months.
No implant was lost during the follow-up period. Of the crowns, 4.5% (test) and 9.1% (control) showed bleeding on probing (P = 1.000), and plaque was visible in 13.6% (test) and 27.3% (control) of the crowns (P = 0.240). Changes in bone crest level seemed to have no correlation with the restoration method (P = 0.77/0.79). Technical failures were observed in three restorations of the test and four of the control group. Evaluation of patients’ satisfaction revealed high acceptance regarding fit, esthetics, and chewing effectiveness in both groups.
Over a 12-month follow-up, screw-retained and cemented crowns could show comparable clinical and radiological results regarding soft tissue health, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction. Duration of treatment alone was significantly shorter in screw-retained crowns.
Prosthetic retention methods are related with the occurrence of complications, such as peri-implantitis. However, scientific valuable data that proof superiority of a specific retention technique are rare. In single-gap implants, screw retention and cementation seemed to achieved comparable results.
KeywordsSingle-tooth implants Dental restoration Treatment outcome Cementation Screw-retaining Peri-implantitis
The study was performed without funding from external resources.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in the present study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethical Committee of Tartu University, Estonia (Protocol No. 234/T-5) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Scholander S (1999) A retrospective evaluation of 259 single-tooth replacements by the use of Brånemark implants. Int J Prosthodont 12:483–491Google Scholar
- 2.Romanos GE, Nentwig GH (2000) Single molar replacement with a progressive thread design implant system: a retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:831–836Google Scholar
- 3.Gibbard LL, Zarb G (2002) A 5-year prospective study of implant-supported single-tooth replacements. J Can Dent Assoc 68:110–116Google Scholar
- 6.Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Givani A, Stellini E (2012) Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 5:355–364Google Scholar
- 24.Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G (2011) Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:1102–1107Google Scholar
- 30.Shapoff CA, Lahey BJ (2012) Crestal bone loss and the consequences of retained excess cement around dental implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 33:94–96 98–101; quiz 102, 112Google Scholar
- 31.Bianchi AE, Bosetti M, Dolci G, Sberna MT, Sanfilippo S, Cannas M (2004) In vitro and in vivo follow-up of titanium transmucosal implants with a zirconia collar. J Appl Biomater Biomech 2:143–150Google Scholar
- 33.Nakamura K, Kanno T, Milleding P, Ortengren U (2010) Zirconia as a dental implant abutment material: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 23:299–309Google Scholar