Comparison of Cemented vs Screw-Retained, Customized Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacture Zirconia Abutments for Esthetically Located Single-Tooth Implants: A 10-Year Randomized Prospective Study

Amorfini, Leonardo; Storelli, Stefano; Mosca, Daniela; Scanferla, Massimo; Romeo, Eugenio

doi:10.11607/ijp.5305

Cited by 27 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The success rates after dental implant treatment are high [ 23 , 34 , 35 ], and the need for future removal and reparation of implant-fixed restorations will increase [ 11 ]. The choice of cement for implant-fixed restorations can influence implant stability after restoration removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence of the disconnection of the crown, abutment and implant damage can occur and may increase the loss of the implant [ 22 ]. Three types of retention of fixed dental implant-supported prosthesis-like crowns are described in the literature: screw retention, cement retention [ 6 , 12 , 23 , 24 ], and a combination of both [ 25 , 26 ]. Each type of retention has advantages and disadvantages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The retention force of cemented crowns on implant abutments with various luting materials was evaluated. Cobalt–chromium crowns were cemented onto tapered titanium abutments (Camlog) with eugenol-free temporary cement (RelyX TempBond NE), composite-based temporary cement (Bifix Temp), zinc phosphate cement (Harvard Cement), glass-ionomer cements (Meron, Fuji I), and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Fuji II, Fuji Plus, Ketac Cem Plus). Specimen aging via hydrostress was performed in artificial saliva at 37 °C for 14 days (S1), followed by hydrothermal stress with thermocycling (S2). The crowns were removed, and the force was recorded (T1). Subsequently, the crowns were recemented, aged, and removed, and the force was recorded (T2, T3). The retention forces differences were statistically significant according to the storage conditions at T1 (p = 0.002) and T3 (p = 0.0002). After aging (S1), Ketac Cem Plus had the highest retention force median value difference (T3 versus T1) (−773 N), whereas RelyX TempBond NE had the lowest (−146 N). After aging (S2), Meron had the highest retention force median value difference (−783 N), whereas RelyX TempBond NE had the lowest (−168 N). Recementation decreased the retention force of the implant-supported cobalt–chromium crowns cemented and recemented with the same luting materials. Luting materials (at T1) and aging conditions significantly impacted the retention force.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These custom abutments, designed with computer-aided design (CAD) software and subsequently milled and sintered in zirconia, are cemented extraorally on titanium bonding bases. Once applied, they allow obtaining an ideal emergence profile, high compatibility with soft tissues and high aesthetics [4]. Above these customised abutments, it is possible to cement monolithic restorations [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once applied, they allow obtaining an ideal emergence profile, high compatibility with soft tissues and high aesthetics [4]. Above these customised abutments, it is possible to cement monolithic restorations [4,5]. However, while several clinical studies show that the use of these abutments can represent an ideal solution for the fixed rehabilitation of the implant patient, not only in the anterior [4] but also in the posterior areas [6], some practical problems are related to this approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence in fixed implant prosthodontics: a retrospective study of 106 implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns inserted in the posterior jaws of 90 patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science concerned with building smart software or machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. We present a protocol for the use of AI to fabricate implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) cemented on customized hybrid abutments. Methods: The study protocol consisted of: (1) intraoral scan of the implant position; (2) design of the individual abutment and temporary crown using computer-aided design (CAD) software; (3) milling of the zirconia abutment and the temporary polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crown, with extraoral cementation of the zirconia abutment on the relative titanium bonding base, to generate an individual hybrid abutment; (4) clinical application of the hybrid abutment and the temporary PMMA crown; (5) intraoral scan of the hybrid abutment; (6) CAD of the final crown with automated margin line design using AI; (7) milling, sintering and characterisation of the final MZC; and (8) clinical application of the MZC. The outcome variables were mathematical (quality of the fabrication of the individual zirconia abutment) and clinical, such as (1) quality of the marginal adaptation, (2) of interproximal contact points and (3) of occlusal contacts, (4) chromatic integration, (5) survival and (6) success of MZCs. A careful statistical analysis was performed. Results: 90 patients (35 males, 55 females; mean age 53.3 ± 13.7 years) restored with 106 implant-supported MZCs were included in the study. The follow-up varied from 6 months to 3 years. The quality of the fabrication of individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44 μm (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalization. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent. The three-year cumulative survival and success of the MZCs were 99.0% and 91.3%, respectively.

show abstract

“…FDP enhances the masticatory function, as well as esthetics, and has high success and survival rates 12. Implants are conventionally retained using screws or cement, and FDP has advantages and disadvantages associated with cement remnants, screw hole creation, and retrievability 3456789…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: A finite element study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEA novel retentive type of implant prosthesis that does not require the use of cement or screw holes has been introduced; however, there are few reports examining the biomechanical aspects of this novel implant. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical features of cementless fixation (CLF) implant prostheses.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe test groups of three variations of CLF implant prostheses and a control group of conventional cement-retained (CR) prosthesis were designed three-dimensionally for finite element analysis. The test groups were divided according to the abutment shape and the relining strategy on the inner surface of the implant crown as follows; resin-air hole-full (RAF), resin-air hole (RA), and resin-no air hole (RNA). The von Mises stress and principal stress were used to evaluate the stress values and distributions of the implant components. Contact open values were calculated to analyze the gap formation of the contact surfaces at the abutment-resin and abutment-implant interfaces. The micro-strain values were evaluated for the surrounding bone.RESULTSValues reflecting the maximum stress on the abutment were as follows (in MPa): RAF, 25.6; RA, 23.4; RNA, 20.0; and CR, 15.8. The value of gap formation was measured from 0.88 to 1.19 µm at the abutmentresin interface and 24.4 to 24.7 µm at the abutment-implant interface. The strain distribution was similar in all cases.CONCLUSIONCLF had no disadvantages in terms of the biomechanical features compared with conventional CR implant prosthesis and could be successfully applied for implant prosthesis.

show abstract

Comparison of Cemented vs Screw-Retained, Customized Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacture Zirconia Abutments for Esthetically Located Single-Tooth Implants: A 10-Year Randomized Prospective Study

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study

Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study

Artificial intelligence in fixed implant prosthodontics: a retrospective study of 106 implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns inserted in the posterior jaws of 90 patients

Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: A finite element study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About