Michael Naumann, Arndt Happe, Agnes Holtkamp, Sarah M Blender
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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