All‐ceramic restoration of zirconia two‐piece implants – a randomized controlled clinical trial

Payer, Michael; Heschl, Alexander; Koller, Martin; Arnetzl, G; Lorenzoni, Martin; Jakse, Norbert

doi:10.1111/clr.12342

Cited by 90 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…10 In a clinical study it was reported that it could be eliminated by the adhesive abutment fixation of the zirconia two-piece implant system. 30 Similarly in this report; radiographic outcomes were clinically acceptable. In our study, one-piece and twopiece zirconia implants revealed similar marginal bone loss and no microgaps at implant abutment connections that could provide marginal bone preservation.…”

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 68%

Reconstruction of Single Tooth Loss with One-Piece and Two-Piece Zirconia Implants: Case Report

Bal¹,

Kurt²,

Güngör³

et al. 2016

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci Cases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 68%

Reconstruction of Single Tooth Loss with One-Piece and Two-Piece Zirconia Implants: Case Report

Bal¹,

Kurt²,

Güngör³

et al. 2016

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci Cases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of the included studies, six solely addressed single tooth replacements (Cannizzaro et al 2010;Gahlert et al 2015;Grassi et al 2015;Kohal et al 2012;Payer et al 2013;Payer et al 2015), whereas only one study solely considered multiple lost teeth, rehabilitated with 3-unit fixed dental prostheses (Kohal et al 2013). Finally, two studies included both indication types (Jung et al 2015;Spies et al 2015a) and were, therefore, split in two independent cohorts according to the type of restoration (SC or FDP) and analyzed separately.…”

Section: Type Of Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six of these studies described the immediate temporization of the implants with provisional acrylic restorations (Cannizzaro et al 2010;Grassi et al 2015;Jung et al 2015;Kohal et al 2012;Kohal et al 2013;Spies et al 2015a). In the seventh study (Payer et al 2015), the implants were immediately restored with all-ceramic CAD/CAM provisionals without occlusal contacts and after a healing period of 4 months, the implants were restored with all-ceramic crowns. Finally, in two of the included studies a delayedtemporization concept was preferred.…”

Section: Implant Temporizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcomes of Zirconia Dental Implants: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of zirconia dental implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses. An electronic search was conducted up to November 2015 (without any restriction regarding the publication time) through the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective clinical trials including >15 patients. Primary outcomes were survival rate and MBL. Furthermore, the influence of several covariates on MBL was evaluated. Qualitative assessment and statistical analyses were performed. This review was conducted according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. With the applied search strategy, 4,196 titles could be identified. After a screening procedure, 2 randomized controlled clinical trials and 7 prospective clinical trials remained for analyses. In these trials, a total of 326 patients received 398 implants. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 60 mo. Implant loss was mostly reported within the first year, especially within the healing period. Thereafter, nearly constant survival curves could be observed. Therefore, separate meta-analyses were performed for the first and subsequent years, resulting in an implant survival rate of 95.6% (95% confidence interval: 93.3% to 97.9%) after 12 mo and, thereafter, an expected decrease of 0.05% per year (0.25% after 5 y). Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted for the mean MBL after 12 mo, resulting in 0.79 mm (95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.86 mm). Implant bulk material and design, restoration type, and the application of minor augmentation procedures during surgery, as well as the modes of temporization and loading, had no statistically significant influence on MBL. The short-term cumulative survival rates and the MBL of zirconia implants in the presented systematic review are promising. However, additional data are still needed to confirm the long-term predictability of these implants. analyses. In these trials, a total of 326 patients received 398 implants. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 60 months. Implant loss was mostly reported within the first year, especially within the healing period. Thereafter, nearly constant survival curves could be observed. Therefore, separate meta-analyses were performed for the first and subsequent years, resulting in a survival rate of the implants of 95.6% (95%CI:93.3% -97.9%) after 12 months, and thereafter an expected decrease of 0.05% per year (0.25% after 5 years). Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted for the mean MBL after 12 months, resulting in 0.79 mm of MBL (95%CI: 0.73 mm -0.86 mm).Implant bulk material, implant design, restoration type, the application of minor augmentation procedures during surgery as well as the modes of temporization and loading had no statistically significant influence on MBL.Conclusions: The short-term cumulative survival rates and the MBL of zirconia implants in the presented systemati...

show abstract

“…Bu konu ile ilgili çalışmaların çoğu olgu sunumu şeklindedir. [84][85][86] Günümüzde henüz rutin muayenehane pratiğinde kullanılmasa da, ilerleyen yıllarda zirkonyum implantların özellikle ön bölge estetik olgularda uygulanması öngörülmektedir.…”

Section: Zirkonyum ġMplantlarunclassified