A 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia-based versus metal-based implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the premolar region
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
A 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia-based versus metal-based implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the premolar region. / Hosseini, Mandana; Worsaae, Nils; Gotfredsen, Klaus.
I: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Bind 33, Nr. 8, 2022, s. 792-803.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia-based versus metal-based implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the premolar region
AU - Hosseini, Mandana
AU - Worsaae, Nils
AU - Gotfredsen, Klaus
N1 - © 2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare 5-year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic restorations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5-year follow-up. The prosthetic treatment on single-tooth implants was randomly assigned to all-ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal-ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient-reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP-49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow-up examination.RESULTS: At the 5-year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: -0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC- and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different.CONCLUSIONS: The biological, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes for implant-supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5-years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare 5-year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic restorations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5-year follow-up. The prosthetic treatment on single-tooth implants was randomly assigned to all-ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal-ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient-reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP-49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow-up examination.RESULTS: At the 5-year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: -0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC- and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different.CONCLUSIONS: The biological, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes for implant-supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5-years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments.
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13960
DO - 10.1111/clr.13960
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 35633183
VL - 33
SP - 792
EP - 803
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
IS - 8
ER -
ID: 311598122