Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Evaluation of marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cement-retained all-ceramic implant-supported crowns on zirconia abutment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated on zirconia abutment at different follow-up periods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Independent search was conducted in Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and PubMed/PubMed Central/MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine for prospective studies and randomized controlled trials published between January 2014 and June 2023 evaluating the marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated on zirconia abutment. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the quantitative data on the marginal bone level and biological complications.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and six studies for quantitative synthesis. For marginal bone level, no statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.83 and P = 0.69, respectively) during the follow-up period of 3 years and 5 years. For probing depth, the cemented group showed more amount of probing depth than the screw-retained group at a follow-up period of 3 years (P < 0.05) whereas no statistically significant difference was observed at a follow-up period of 5 years (P = 0.73). For bleeding on probing, the cemented group showed more probing depth than the screw-retained group at a follow-up period of 5 years (P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that the screw-retained group showed no statistically significant difference in marginal bone level, comparatively fewer biological complications, and relatively higher technical complications than the cemented group at different follow-up periods.

Impact of profile angle of CAD-CAM abutment on the marginal bone loss of implant-supported single-tooth posterior restorations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although the emergence angle has been related to marginal bone loss, information regarding the relationship between the transmucosal configuration of a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) abutment at specific subgingival levels and the amount of marginal bone loss is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the influence of CAD-CAM abutment profile angles, measured at different subgingival positions, on the marginal bone loss of posterior single-tooth implant-supported restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 260 posterior single-tooth implant-supported restorations using CAD-CAM abutments were analyzed in 206 patients. All implants had internal conical seal connections with a platform-switched design. The following data were extracted using digital periapical radiography: emergence profile, profile angle at distance ranges of 0 to 1 mm, 1 to 2 mm, and 2 to 3 mm from the implant-abutment junction, and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). The MBL was measured from the time of delivery of the restorations up to 7 years or more. A linear mixed model was applied to investigate whether there was a significant difference in MBL based on the emergence profile and time, followed by the Bonferroni correction post hoc test. A Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the profile angle and MBL at each distance range. The cut-off points for each distance range were determined by using the c-index, and independent t tests were conducted based on these cut-off values to evaluate the statistical differences (α=.05 for all statistical analyses).

RESULTS

The convex emergence profile exhibited greater MBL than the concave and straight profiles at each follow-up visit (P<.001). A significant correlation was found between the profile angle and MBL in the 0 to 1 mm, 1 to 2 mm distance ranges. However, no significant correlation was found between the profile angle and MBL in the 2 to 3 mm distance range (P>.05). The cut-off points were 34 degrees at the mesial and 28 degrees at the distal in the 0 to 1 mm range, and 33 and 20 degrees at the mesial and distal in the 1 to 2 mm range.

CONCLUSIONS

The profile angle near the implant-abutment junction and the type of emergence profile of the CAD-CAM abutment were closely associated with MBL in implants with internal conical seal connection with a platform switch design.

The L-shape technique in guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A step-by-step protocol and a 2-14 year retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the methodology of the "L-shape" technique in guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement and report on the clinical, esthetic, and patient satisfaction outcomes up to 14 years of follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fourteen patients treated with the "L-shape" technique were included in this retrospective study. The L-shape technique was performed by trimming and placing a soft-type bone block made of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen at the buccal-occlusal aspect of the dental implant. The remaining gaps were filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral granules and the augmented area was covered with a collagen membrane. The following parameters were recorded:  probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), keratinized tissue width (KT) and marginal bone level (MBL). Esthetic outcomes were assessed according to the pink esthetic score (PES) and the white esthetic score (WES). Patient satisfaction was evaluated by means of a numerical rating scale (0-10). The stability of each augmented site was assessed by measuring the volumetric changes between baseline (crown delivery) and the respective follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 13 maxillary incisors and one maxillary canine in 14 patients were included. The mean follow-up period was 7.7 ± 3.8 years. PES values amounted to 10.7 ± 3.3 and WES to 8.8 ± 1.4. Patient satisfaction reached 9.4 ± 0.8. Mean PD at implant sites were 2.7 ± 0.7 mm while BOP amounted to 15.0 ± 0.2% and Pl to 5.0 ± 0.0%. Volumetric analyses revealed minimal changes at the augmented sites irrespective of the region of interest. Radiographic MBL remained relatively stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of the present study the L-shape augmentation procedure seems to be a reliable technique when performing GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone. Outcomes encompassed stable clinical and esthetic results accompanied by high levels of patient satisfaction. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm possible benefits of the L-shape technique over traditional approaches.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The L-shape appears to be a simple yet promising technique in GBR with simultaneous implant placement that can easily be translated into clinical practice.

Retentive Strength of CAD/CAM-Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns Luted on Titanium Implant Abutments Using Different Ceramic Materials and Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the retentive strength of monolithic hybrid-all-ceramic crowns luted on titanium implant abutments. Material and Methods: In total, 450 crowns (75 each of Mark II, Empress CAD, e.max CAD, Suprinity, Enamic, Celtra Duo) were milled using a CAD/CAM system. The crowns were cemented onto sandblasted titanium implant abutments using five luting agents (Multilink Implant, Variolink II, RelyX Unicem, Fujicem, and Panavia 2.0). After thermocycling was performed (5000 cycles: 5−55 °C, 30-s dwell time), the crowns were removed using a universal testing machine. The location of luting-agent residue on the abutment and inner crown surfaces was evaluated. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni correction were performed to evaluate differences of retentive strength depending on the crown material and the kind of the luting agent. Results: The retentive strengths for the different ceramic materials were Vita Mark II: 652N-759N (SD:134N-146N), Empress CAD: 681N-822N (SD: 89N-146N), e.max CAD: 784N-1044N (SD: 109N-176N), Vita Enamic: 716N-1177N (SD: 132N-220N), Vita Suprinity: 867N-1488N (SD: 202N-278N), and Celtra Duo 772N-1335N (SD:151N-229N). After the removal trials, the visual documentation showed different adhesive residue location depending on the ceramic materials. Furthermore, the pull-off force was dependent on the choice of adhesives. No significant differences were found between different luting agents and the ceramic material Vita Mark II and Empress CAD. EmaxCAD showed significant differences with Unicem and FujiCem compared to Panavia, as did VitaSuprinity, VitaEnamic, and Celtra Duo (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The ceramic material used seems to influence the retentive strength and the use of certain luting agents results in a higher retentive strength for some ceramic materials.

Restorative angle of zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases influences the initial marginal bone loss: 5-year results of a prospective cohort study

Aim

To assess radiographic, restorative, clinical and technical outcomes as well as patient satisfaction of directly veneered zirconia restorations cemented on non‐original titanium bases over 5 years.

Material and Methods

Twenty‐four patients with a single missing tooth in the aesthetic zone were recruited. All patients received a two‐piece implant with a screw‐retained veneered zirconia restoration cemented extraorally on a titanium base abutment. Marginal bone levels (MBL), marginal bone changes, technical complications, patient satisfaction and clinical parameters including probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index were assessed at crown delivery (baseline), at 1 year (FU‐1) and 5 years (FU‐5) of follow‐up. To investigate the relationship between restorative angle and MBL as well as marginal bone changes (bone loss/bone gain), correlation tests and linear regression models were carried out.

Results

Twenty‐two patients were available for re‐examination at 5 years. The mean MBL amounted to 0.54 ± 0.39 mm at baseline, and to 0.24 ± 0.35 at FU‐5 (=bone gain) (p < .001). At FU‐1, a positive correlation (r = .5) between the mesial restorative angle and mesial MBL was found (p = .012). Marginal bone changes between baseline and FU‐1 at mesial sites were also positively correlated with the mesial restorative angle (r = .5; p = .037). Linear and logistic regression models confirmed that mesial marginal bone loss was significantly associated with the mesial restorative angle at FU‐1 (p < .05). At 5 years, these significant associations at mesial sites disappeared (p > .05). At distal sites, no correlations or associations between the restorative angle and MBL or marginal bone changes were found regardless of the time point. During the 5‐year follow‐up, 5 technical complications occurred, mainly within the first year and mostly chippings. All patients were entirely satisfied with their implant‐supported restoration at 5 years.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the present study, the restorative angle of implant‐supported crowns on non‐original titanium bases might influence the initial marginal bone loss but without affecting their favourable long‐term clinical performance. A restorative angle of <40° may limit the initial marginal bone loss at implant‐supported crowns with titanium bases.