Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia and titanium implants in the posterior zone after 1 year of loading—A randomized controlled trial

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1111/clr.14329

Anina N. Zuercher, Marc Balmer, Lily V. Brügger, Daniel S. Thoma, Ronald E. Jung, Stefan P. Bienz

{"title":"Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia and titanium implants in the posterior zone after 1 year of loading—A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Anina N. Zuercher, Marc Balmer, Lily V. Brügger, Daniel S. Thoma, Ronald E. Jung, Stefan P. Bienz","doi":"10.1111/clr.14329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of posterior zirconia and titanium implants at 1 year of implant loading.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial with a within-subject controlled design. Each patient received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal positions randomized. The implant restoration consisted of multiple layered zirconia, with the buccal aspect veneered. In group Zr, the restoration was intraorally cemented onto the one-piece Zr implant, whereas in group Ti, the restoration was extraorally cemented onto the titanium base abutment and intraorally screw-retained onto the Ti implant. Examinations were performed following restoration delivery at baseline (BL) and at 1 year. Measurements included clinical parameters, radiographic outcomes (MBL) and PROMs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Bleeding on probing showed an increase from BL to 1 year (34 ± 30% for Zr; 25 ± 21% for Ti). MBL remained stable with minimal changes from BL to 1 year, measuring 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (mean ± SD) for Zr and −0.1 ± 0.7 mm for Ti. Veneering fractures were the most frequent technical complication and amounted to 17.5% in group Zr and 5% in group Ti (<i>p</i> = .100). Patients preferred Zr implants for their soft tissue color, with a significant difference in perception between patients and clinicians (<i>p</i> < .017).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The study showed that both Zr and Ti implants had similar clinical outcomes, despite a high prevalence of mucositis and a few technical complications. Both implant types demonstrated stable marginal bone levels and similar patient-reported outcome measures.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 11","pages":"1428-1439"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14329","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14329","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To assess the clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of posterior zirconia and titanium implants at 1 year of implant loading.

Materials and Methods

Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial with a within-subject controlled design. Each patient received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal positions randomized. The implant restoration consisted of multiple layered zirconia, with the buccal aspect veneered. In group Zr, the restoration was intraorally cemented onto the one-piece Zr implant, whereas in group Ti, the restoration was extraorally cemented onto the titanium base abutment and intraorally screw-retained onto the Ti implant. Examinations were performed following restoration delivery at baseline (BL) and at 1 year. Measurements included clinical parameters, radiographic outcomes (MBL) and PROMs.

Results

Bleeding on probing showed an increase from BL to 1 year (34 ± 30% for Zr; 25 ± 21% for Ti). MBL remained stable with minimal changes from BL to 1 year, measuring 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (mean ± SD) for Zr and −0.1 ± 0.7 mm for Ti. Veneering fractures were the most frequent technical complication and amounted to 17.5% in group Zr and 5% in group Ti (p = .100). Patients preferred Zr implants for their soft tissue color, with a significant difference in perception between patients and clinicians (p < .017).

Conclusion

The study showed that both Zr and Ti implants had similar clinical outcomes, despite a high prevalence of mucositis and a few technical complications. Both implant types demonstrated stable marginal bone levels and similar patient-reported outcome measures.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

后区氧化锆和钛种植体植入 1 年后的临床、影像学和患者报告结果--随机对照试验。

目的评估后部氧化锆和钛种植体在植入一年后的临床、影像学和患者报告结果（PROMs）：42 名有两颗相邻缺失牙的患者参加了一项随机对照试验，试验采用受试者内对照设计。每位患者都接受了一颗氧化锆（Zr）和一颗钛（Ti）种植体，中远端位置随机。种植体修复体由多层氧化锆组成，颊侧贴面。在 Zr 组中，修复体在口腔内与一体式 Zr 种植体固位，而在 Ti 组中，修复体在口腔外与钛基台固位，在口腔内与 Ti 种植体用螺丝固位。修复体交付后，分别在基线（BL）和一年后进行检查。测量包括临床参数、放射学结果（MBL）和PROMs：结果：从基线到 1 年期间，探诊出血量有所增加（锆为 34 ± 30%；钛为 25 ± 21%）。MBL保持稳定，从BL到1年的变化很小，Zr为0.1 ± 0.4 mm（平均值± SD），Ti为-0.1 ± 0.7 mm。贴面骨折是最常见的技术并发症，Zr 组为 17.5%，Ti 组为 5%（p = .100）。患者更喜欢 Zr 种植体的软组织颜色，但患者和临床医生的看法存在显著差异（p 结论：Zr 和 Ti 种植体的软组织颜色都比 Zr 种植体好：研究表明，尽管粘膜炎的发病率较高且存在一些技术并发症，但锆和钛种植体的临床效果相似。两种类型的种植体都表现出稳定的边缘骨水平和相似的患者报告结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.