Clinical evaluation of ceramic implant abutments in anterior restorations.

Zhuo-Fan Chen, Pow Ho Nang, Yan Wang, Zhi-Bin Luo
{"title":"Clinical evaluation of ceramic implant abutments in anterior restorations.","authors":"Zhuo-Fan Chen,&nbsp;Pow Ho Nang,&nbsp;Yan Wang,&nbsp;Zhi-Bin Luo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The development of new high strength ceramic abutments can enhance the overall aesthetic outcome of an implant-supported prosthesis. This study was to compare the clinical application of alumina and zirconia ceramic implant abutments in the anterior region. Twenty-three consecutive patients requiring single-tooth implants in the anterior region were randomized to receive either an alumina ceramic abutment (CeraAdapt) or a zirconia ceramic abutment. All-ceramic (IPS-Empress 2) crowns were then fabricated and cemented over the abutments with composite cement. Peri-implant mucosal health and bone levels were evaluated by the gingival index and radiographs at 2-week and 1-year follow-up. Aesthetic outcomes as well as technical problems with the restorations were evaluated during the observation period from 12 to 48 months after functional loading. A total of 17 alumina ceramic abutments and 18 zirconia ceramic abutments were evaluated. No patients dropped out during the study period. Eighteen out of the 23 patients maintained good function throughout the study. The median observation period was 21 months. Ceramic crown loosening was found in two restorations at 1-week and 2-years respectively after insertion. One ceramic crown fractured at 1 week after insertion. At 1-year follow-up, mean marginal bone loss around implants was 1.2 +/- 0.5 mm and the peri-implant mucosa in relation to abutment or crown was healthy with a mean gingival score of 0.6 +/- 0.2. All patients were satisfied with the final aesthetic outcome. However, two alumina abutments fractured after two years of loading. In conclusion, both ceramic abutments have shown a favourable biological response and aesthetic outcome; however, zirconia abutments with their superior mechanical properties might be better for supporting single-tooth implant restorations in the aesthetic zone.</p>","PeriodicalId":75517,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons","volume":"19 ","pages":"67-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The development of new high strength ceramic abutments can enhance the overall aesthetic outcome of an implant-supported prosthesis. This study was to compare the clinical application of alumina and zirconia ceramic implant abutments in the anterior region. Twenty-three consecutive patients requiring single-tooth implants in the anterior region were randomized to receive either an alumina ceramic abutment (CeraAdapt) or a zirconia ceramic abutment. All-ceramic (IPS-Empress 2) crowns were then fabricated and cemented over the abutments with composite cement. Peri-implant mucosal health and bone levels were evaluated by the gingival index and radiographs at 2-week and 1-year follow-up. Aesthetic outcomes as well as technical problems with the restorations were evaluated during the observation period from 12 to 48 months after functional loading. A total of 17 alumina ceramic abutments and 18 zirconia ceramic abutments were evaluated. No patients dropped out during the study period. Eighteen out of the 23 patients maintained good function throughout the study. The median observation period was 21 months. Ceramic crown loosening was found in two restorations at 1-week and 2-years respectively after insertion. One ceramic crown fractured at 1 week after insertion. At 1-year follow-up, mean marginal bone loss around implants was 1.2 +/- 0.5 mm and the peri-implant mucosa in relation to abutment or crown was healthy with a mean gingival score of 0.6 +/- 0.2. All patients were satisfied with the final aesthetic outcome. However, two alumina abutments fractured after two years of loading. In conclusion, both ceramic abutments have shown a favourable biological response and aesthetic outcome; however, zirconia abutments with their superior mechanical properties might be better for supporting single-tooth implant restorations in the aesthetic zone.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
陶瓷种植基台在前牙修复中的临床评价。
新型高强度陶瓷基台的发展可以提高种植体支持修复体的整体美学效果。本研究的目的是比较氧化铝和氧化锆陶瓷种植基台在前牙区的临床应用。连续23例需要在前牙区种植单牙的患者随机接受氧化铝陶瓷基台(CeraAdapt)或氧化锆陶瓷基台。然后制作全陶瓷(IPS-Empress 2)冠,并用复合水泥将其粘接在基台上。在2周和1年的随访中,通过牙龈指数和x线片评估种植体周围粘膜健康和骨水平。在功能加载后12至48个月的观察期内,对修复体的美学结果和技术问题进行评估。共对17个氧化铝陶瓷基台和18个氧化锆陶瓷基台进行了评价。在研究期间没有患者退出。在整个研究过程中,23名患者中有18名保持了良好的功能。中位观察期为21个月。两个修复体分别在插入后1周和2年发现陶瓷冠松动。1个瓷冠在植入后1周破裂。在1年的随访中,种植体周围的平均边缘骨损失为1.2 +/- 0.5 mm,与基牙或冠相关的种植体周围粘膜健康,平均牙龈评分为0.6 +/- 0.2。所有患者均对最终的美观效果感到满意。然而,在加载两年后,两个氧化铝基台断裂。综上所述,两种陶瓷基台均表现出良好的生物反应和美学效果;然而,氧化锆基牙由于其优越的力学性能,可能更适合用于美学区单牙种植体修复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Oral health and integrated care--the generational challenge. Address by the President of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons Werner H Bischof, BDSc, MDSc, FRACDS, MRACDS (perio), FPFA, FICD at the Opening Ceremony. Periodontal diseases: basic concepts, association with systemic health, and contemporary studies of pathobiology. "MI" caries management--an overview. The mutilated dentition--management of the debilitated dentition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1