Paula Andrea Ruiz Henao, Gabriel Leonardo Magrin, Leticia Caneiro-Queija, Cesar Augusto Magalhães Benfatti, Yago Leira, Antonio Liñares-González, Juan Blanco-Carrión
{"title":"上颌骨前部单片氧化锆与单片钛、窄直径牙科植入物的对比:随机临床试验的 5 年后装载结果","authors":"Paula Andrea Ruiz Henao, Gabriel Leonardo Magrin, Leticia Caneiro-Queija, Cesar Augusto Magalhães Benfatti, Yago Leira, Antonio Liñares-González, Juan Blanco-Carrión","doi":"10.1111/clr.14319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate esthetic parameters in the anterior maxillary region by comparing single-piece zirconia versus titanium narrow-diameter implants. Additionally, clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty implants (tissue level implant) were placed in 30 patients in the maxillary esthetic sector. Depending on randomization, a zirconia (test) or titanium implant (control) was placed. Esthetic, clinical, and radiological parameters, including the implant crown esthetic index (ICAI), pink esthetic score (PES), probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and marginal bone levels, were evaluated at 12, 36 and 60 months after loading.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty months after crown placement, no significant differences were found between groups. The ICAI values were 5.25 ± 4.21 and 4.50 ± 2.98 for the test and control groups, respectively. The corresponding PES values were 7.44 ± 1.93 and 7.43 ± 1.74 for the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences for the rest of the parameters evaluated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>It can be suggested that monotype zirconia implants may serve as a potential alternative to titanium implants in selected clinical scenarios. While the results demonstrated comparable esthetic, clinical, and radiological aspects for zirconia implants as compared to titanium implants after a 5-year follow-up period, further research with larger sample sizes and longer-term follow-up is recommended.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 10","pages":"1310-1323"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14319","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single-piece zirconia versus single-piece titanium, narrow-diameter dental implants in the anterior maxilla: 5-year post-loading results of a randomized clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Paula Andrea Ruiz Henao, Gabriel Leonardo Magrin, Leticia Caneiro-Queija, Cesar Augusto Magalhães Benfatti, Yago Leira, Antonio Liñares-González, Juan Blanco-Carrión\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate esthetic parameters in the anterior maxillary region by comparing single-piece zirconia versus titanium narrow-diameter implants. Additionally, clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirty implants (tissue level implant) were placed in 30 patients in the maxillary esthetic sector. Depending on randomization, a zirconia (test) or titanium implant (control) was placed. Esthetic, clinical, and radiological parameters, including the implant crown esthetic index (ICAI), pink esthetic score (PES), probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and marginal bone levels, were evaluated at 12, 36 and 60 months after loading.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Sixty months after crown placement, no significant differences were found between groups. The ICAI values were 5.25 ± 4.21 and 4.50 ± 2.98 for the test and control groups, respectively. The corresponding PES values were 7.44 ± 1.93 and 7.43 ± 1.74 for the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences for the rest of the parameters evaluated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>It can be suggested that monotype zirconia implants may serve as a potential alternative to titanium implants in selected clinical scenarios. While the results demonstrated comparable esthetic, clinical, and radiological aspects for zirconia implants as compared to titanium implants after a 5-year follow-up period, further research with larger sample sizes and longer-term follow-up is recommended.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"35 10\",\"pages\":\"1310-1323\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14319\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14319\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14319","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}
Single-piece zirconia versus single-piece titanium, narrow-diameter dental implants in the anterior maxilla: 5-year post-loading results of a randomized clinical trial
Objectives
The aim of this study was to evaluate esthetic parameters in the anterior maxillary region by comparing single-piece zirconia versus titanium narrow-diameter implants. Additionally, clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed.
Materials and Methods
Thirty implants (tissue level implant) were placed in 30 patients in the maxillary esthetic sector. Depending on randomization, a zirconia (test) or titanium implant (control) was placed. Esthetic, clinical, and radiological parameters, including the implant crown esthetic index (ICAI), pink esthetic score (PES), probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and marginal bone levels, were evaluated at 12, 36 and 60 months after loading.
Results
Sixty months after crown placement, no significant differences were found between groups. The ICAI values were 5.25 ± 4.21 and 4.50 ± 2.98 for the test and control groups, respectively. The corresponding PES values were 7.44 ± 1.93 and 7.43 ± 1.74 for the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences for the rest of the parameters evaluated.
Conclusion
It can be suggested that monotype zirconia implants may serve as a potential alternative to titanium implants in selected clinical scenarios. While the results demonstrated comparable esthetic, clinical, and radiological aspects for zirconia implants as compared to titanium implants after a 5-year follow-up period, further research with larger sample sizes and longer-term follow-up is recommended.
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.