Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Clinical relevance

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scholander S (1999) A retrospective evaluation of 259 single-tooth replacements by the use of Brånemark implants. Int J Prosthodont 12:483–491

    PubMed  Google 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 15:831–836

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibbard LL, Zarb G (2002) A 5-year prospective study of implant-supported single-tooth replacements. J Can Dent Assoc 68:110–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donati M, Ekestubbe A, Lindhe J, Wennström JL (2015) Implant-supported single-tooth restorations. A 12-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:1207–1211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gotfredsen K, Wiskott A (2012) Consensus report - reconstructions on implants. The third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:238–241

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 5:355–364

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF (2014) A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. J Prosthodont 23:1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sherif S, Susarla SM, Hwang JW, Weber HP, Wright RF (2011) Clinician- and patient-reported long-term evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant restorations: a 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 15:993–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Júnior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP (2016) Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 115:419–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Anchieta RB, Machado LS, Hirata R, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG (2016) Platform-switching for cemented versus screwed fixed dental prostheses: reliability and failure modes: an in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18:830–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson TG, Valderrama P, Burbano M, Blansett J, Levine R, Kessler H, Rodrigues DC (2015) Foreign bodies associated with peri-implantitis human biopsies. J Periodontol 86:9–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Schneider D (2012) Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:163–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofstede TM, Ercoli C, Hagan ME (1999) Alternative complete-arch cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 82:94–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang Y, Lee JJ, Srikanth R, Lawn BR (2013) Edge chipping and flexural resistance of monolithic ceramics. Dent Mater 29:1201–1208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pandis N (2012) Sample calculation for split-mouth designs. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 141(6):818–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL (2005) Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:26–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gross MD (2008) Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current concepts. Aust Dent J 53:S60–S68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rilo B, da Silva JL, Mora MJ, Santana U (2008) Guidelines for occlusion strategy in implant-borne prostheses. A review. Int Dent J 58:139–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yuan JC, Sukotjo C (2013) Occlusion for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in partially edentulous patients: a literature review and current concepts. J Periodontal Implant Sci 43:51–57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Koyano K, Esaki D (2015) Occlusion on oral implants: current clinical guidelines. J Oral Rehabil 42:153–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Torrado E, Ercoli C, Al Mardini M, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro L (2004) A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 91:532–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Traini T, Di Iorio D, Caputi S (2007) Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-versus cement-retained porcelain fused to metal single crowns: SEM fractographic analysis. Dent Mater 23:296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Karl M, Graef F, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM (2007) In vitro effect of load cycling on metal-ceramic cement- and screw-retained implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 97:137–140

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 26:1102–1107

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Brandão ML, Vettore MV, Vidigal Júnior GM (2013) Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 40:287–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP (2006) Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:375–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Maslova N, Linkeviciene L, Peciuliene V, Linkevicius T (2015) Clinical factors influencing removal of the cement excess in implant-supported restorations. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:771–778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wadhwani C, Goodwin S, Chung KH (2016) Cementing an implant crown: a novel measurement system using computational fluid dynamics approach. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18:97–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilson TG Jr (2009) The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 80:1388–1392

    Article  PubMed  Google 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, 112

    PubMed  Google 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 2:143–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hisbergues M, Vendeville S, Vendeville P (2009) Zirconia: established facts and perspectives for a biomaterial in dental implantology. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 88:519–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nakamura K, Kanno T, Milleding P, Ortengren U (2010) Zirconia as a dental implant abutment material: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 23:299–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was performed without funding from external resources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Paul Weigl, Kristina Saarepera, Kristina Hinrikus, Yanyun Wu, Georgia Trimpou & Jonas Lorenz

Authors
  1. Paul Weigl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina Saarepera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristina Hinrikus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanyun Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georgia Trimpou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jonas Lorenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Weigl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weigl, P., Saarepera, K., Hinrikus, K. et al. Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design. Clin Oral Invest 23, 1067–1075 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2531-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2531-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation