Skip to main content
main-content

26.06.2018 | Original Article | Ausgabe 3/2019

Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2019

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

Zeitschrift:
Clinical Oral Investigations > Ausgabe 3/2019
Autoren:
Paul Weigl, Kristina Saarepera, Kristina Hinrikus, Yanyun Wu, Georgia Trimpou, Jonas Lorenz

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.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise