Monolithic Hybrid Abutment Crowns (Screw-Retained) Versus Monolithic Hybrid Abutments With Monolithic Crowns (Adhesively Cemented): Three-Year Data of a Prospective Clinical Split-Mouth Study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Michael Naumann, Arndt Happe, Agnes Holtkamp, Sarah M Blender
{"title":"Monolithic Hybrid Abutment Crowns (Screw-Retained) Versus Monolithic Hybrid Abutments With Monolithic Crowns (Adhesively Cemented): Three-Year Data of a Prospective Clinical Split-Mouth Study.","authors":"Michael Naumann, Arndt Happe, Agnes Holtkamp, Sarah M Blender","doi":"10.1111/jerd.13335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compares the restoration of single-tooth implants with screw-retained lithium-disilicate hybrid-abutment crowns and single-tooth lithium-disilicate crowns adhesively bonded to hybrid abutments with regard to objective clinical and subjective patient-specific evaluation criteria over a time of observation of 3 years.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two bone-level implants were placed in contralateral sides of the same jaw in 10 patients, each with two single-tooth gaps. After osseointegration, implants were uncovered and an impression was taken. In accordance with the split-mouth design, one implant in each patient was restored with a screw-retained hybrid abutment crown and the other implant with a hybrid abutment and an adhesively bonded single-tooth crown. The restorations were randomly allocated to the implants. Prefabricated titanium bases were used. The ceramic abutments and restorations were fabricated monolithically with pressed lithium-disilicate ceramic. An objective evaluation (survival, technical, or biological complications, FIPS) by the practitioner and a subjective evaluation (satisfaction, OHIP) by the patient were carried out after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after restoration placement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both restoration types showed a survival rate of 100% after 3 years of observation. No technical or biological complications occurred. No significant difference was observed between the two types of restoration neither for objective (survival, technical or biological complications, FIPS) nor subjective (satisfaction, OHIP) evaluation criteria (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No statistically significant differences were observed between screw-retained and cemented pressed lithium-disilicate restorations on bone-level implants for both objective and subjective evaluation criteria, respectively.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Monolithic hybrid-abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutments with single-tooth crowns (cemented) made of pressed lithium disilicate can be used to successfully restore single implants.</p>","PeriodicalId":15988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13335","RegionNum":3,"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

Objectives: This study compares the restoration of single-tooth implants with screw-retained lithium-disilicate hybrid-abutment crowns and single-tooth lithium-disilicate crowns adhesively bonded to hybrid abutments with regard to objective clinical and subjective patient-specific evaluation criteria over a time of observation of 3 years.

Materials and methods: Two bone-level implants were placed in contralateral sides of the same jaw in 10 patients, each with two single-tooth gaps. After osseointegration, implants were uncovered and an impression was taken. In accordance with the split-mouth design, one implant in each patient was restored with a screw-retained hybrid abutment crown and the other implant with a hybrid abutment and an adhesively bonded single-tooth crown. The restorations were randomly allocated to the implants. Prefabricated titanium bases were used. The ceramic abutments and restorations were fabricated monolithically with pressed lithium-disilicate ceramic. An objective evaluation (survival, technical, or biological complications, FIPS) by the practitioner and a subjective evaluation (satisfaction, OHIP) by the patient were carried out after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after restoration placement.

Results: Both restoration types showed a survival rate of 100% after 3 years of observation. No technical or biological complications occurred. No significant difference was observed between the two types of restoration neither for objective (survival, technical or biological complications, FIPS) nor subjective (satisfaction, OHIP) evaluation criteria (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were observed between screw-retained and cemented pressed lithium-disilicate restorations on bone-level implants for both objective and subjective evaluation criteria, respectively.

Clinical significance: Monolithic hybrid-abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutments with single-tooth crowns (cemented) made of pressed lithium disilicate can be used to successfully restore single implants.

整体混合基台冠(螺钉固位)与整体混合基台与整体基台冠(粘结固位):一项前瞻性临床分口研究的三年数据。
研究目的本研究比较了用螺丝固位的二硅酸锂混合基台冠修复单牙种植体和用粘结剂粘结混合基台的单牙二硅酸锂基台冠修复单牙种植体的临床客观评价标准和患者主观评价标准,观察时间为3年:在 10 名患者的同一下颌对侧植入两颗骨水平种植体,每名患者都有两颗单牙间隙。骨结合后,揭开种植体并取模。根据分口设计,每名患者的一颗种植体用螺丝固位混合基台冠修复,另一颗种植体用混合基台和粘接单牙冠修复。修复体随机分配到种植体上。使用预制钛基台。陶瓷基台和修复体是用压制的二硅酸锂陶瓷整体制作的。修复体植入 3、6、12、24 和 36 个月后,由医生进行客观评价(存活率、技术或生物并发症,FIPS),由患者进行主观评价(满意度,OHIP):结果:经过 3 年的观察,两种修复体的存活率均为 100%。没有出现技术或生物并发症。两种修复体在客观(存活率、技术或生物并发症、FIPS)和主观(满意度、OHIP)评价标准方面均无明显差异(P > 0.05):结论:骨水平种植体上的螺钉固位修复体和粘结压入式二硅酸锂修复体在客观和主观评价标准上均无显着差异:压制二硅酸锂制成的单体混合基台冠(螺丝固位)和单体混合基台与单牙冠(粘结)可用于成功修复单颗种植体。
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
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
124
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) is the longest standing peer-reviewed journal devoted solely to advancing the knowledge and practice of esthetic dentistry. Its goal is to provide the very latest evidence-based information in the realm of contemporary interdisciplinary esthetic dentistry through high quality clinical papers, sound research reports and educational features. The range of topics covered in the journal includes: - Interdisciplinary esthetic concepts - Implants - Conservative adhesive restorations - Tooth Whitening - Prosthodontic materials and techniques - Dental materials - Orthodontic, periodontal and endodontic esthetics - Esthetics related research - Innovations in esthetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信