粘接种植体支撑的氧化锆和金属陶瓷单冠的长期固位和存活:回顾性研究。

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1111/clr.14321
P. Rammelsberg, A. L. Klotz
{"title":"粘接种植体支撑的氧化锆和金属陶瓷单冠的长期固位和存活:回顾性研究。","authors":"P. Rammelsberg,&nbsp;A. L. Klotz","doi":"10.1111/clr.14321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the effect of different cement types on the incidence of failure and loss of retention of zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns (SCs) cemented on implant abutments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We placed 567 implant-supported SCs in 358 patients and retrospectively evaluated long-term retention for up to 12.8 years. The frameworks were made from metal alloy (<i>n</i> = 307) or zirconia (<i>n</i> = 260). SCs were cemented with permanent (glass-ionomer cement; <i>n</i> = 376) or semipermanent cement (zinc oxide non-eugenol cement; <i>n</i> = 191) on standardized (<i>n</i> = 446) or customized (<i>n</i> = 121) abutments. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to calculate the incidence of decementation. Differences between survival curves were assessed with log-rank tests. Cox-regression analysis was performed to evaluate multiple risk factors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 567 SCs, 22 failed because of technical complications and four because of implant loss. Loss of retention was observed in 50 SCs. Analysis revealed a 7% probability of loss of retention for zirconia and 16% for metal-ceramic SCs after 10 years (<i>p</i> = .011). After 5 years, loss of retention was higher for standardized abutments than for customized abutments (<i>p</i> = .014). The probability of loss of retention was higher with semipermanent than with permanent cement (<i>p</i> = .001). Cox-regression analysis revealed semipermanent cement as the only significant risk factor for SC failure (<i>p</i> = .026).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In contrast to semipermanent cement, permanent cement provides acceptable long-term retention of cemented implant-supported SCs. These possible positive effects of customized abutments have to be controlled with larger sample sizes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 10","pages":"1335-1342"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14321","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term retention and survival of cemented implant-supported zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns: A retrospective study\",\"authors\":\"P. Rammelsberg,&nbsp;A. L. Klotz\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the effect of different cement types on the incidence of failure and loss of retention of zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns (SCs) cemented on implant abutments.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We placed 567 implant-supported SCs in 358 patients and retrospectively evaluated long-term retention for up to 12.8 years. The frameworks were made from metal alloy (<i>n</i> = 307) or zirconia (<i>n</i> = 260). SCs were cemented with permanent (glass-ionomer cement; <i>n</i> = 376) or semipermanent cement (zinc oxide non-eugenol cement; <i>n</i> = 191) on standardized (<i>n</i> = 446) or customized (<i>n</i> = 121) abutments. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to calculate the incidence of decementation. Differences between survival curves were assessed with log-rank tests. Cox-regression analysis was performed to evaluate multiple risk factors.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of the 567 SCs, 22 failed because of technical complications and four because of implant loss. Loss of retention was observed in 50 SCs. Analysis revealed a 7% probability of loss of retention for zirconia and 16% for metal-ceramic SCs after 10 years (<i>p</i> = .011). After 5 years, loss of retention was higher for standardized abutments than for customized abutments (<i>p</i> = .014). The probability of loss of retention was higher with semipermanent than with permanent cement (<i>p</i> = .001). Cox-regression analysis revealed semipermanent cement as the only significant risk factor for SC failure (<i>p</i> = .026).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>In contrast to semipermanent cement, permanent cement provides acceptable long-term retention of cemented implant-supported SCs. These possible positive effects of customized abutments have to be controlled with larger sample sizes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"35 10\",\"pages\":\"1335-1342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14321\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14321\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14321","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估不同粘接剂类型对种植体基台上粘接氧化锆和金属陶瓷单冠(SC)失败率和固位丧失的影响:我们为 358 名患者植入了 567 个种植体支持的单冠,并对长达 12.8 年的长期固位情况进行了回顾性评估。骨架由金属合金(307 例)或氧化锆(260 例)制成。在标准化(n = 446)或定制(n = 121)基台上用永久性(玻璃离子水泥;n = 376)或半永久性(氧化锌非丁香酚水泥;n = 191)水泥粘结 SC。Kaplan-Meier 曲线用于计算脱落发生率。生存曲线之间的差异通过对数秩检验进行评估。Cox回归分析用于评估多种风险因素:在 567 例 SC 中,22 例因技术并发症而失败,4 例因种植体脱落而失败。有 50 个 SC 出现了固位丧失。分析表明,10年后氧化锆种植体丧失固位的概率为7%,金属陶瓷种植体丧失固位的概率为16%(p = .011)。5 年后,标准基台的固位丧失率高于定制基台(p = .014)。半永久性骨水泥的固位丧失概率高于永久性骨水泥(p = .001)。Cox回归分析显示,半永久性骨水泥是SC失败的唯一重要风险因素(p = .026):结论:与半永久性骨水泥相比,永久性骨水泥可为骨水泥种植体支持的 SC 提供可接受的长期固位。定制基台可能带来的这些积极影响还需要更大的样本量来控制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Long-term retention and survival of cemented implant-supported zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns: A retrospective study

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of different cement types on the incidence of failure and loss of retention of zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns (SCs) cemented on implant abutments.

Methods

We placed 567 implant-supported SCs in 358 patients and retrospectively evaluated long-term retention for up to 12.8 years. The frameworks were made from metal alloy (n = 307) or zirconia (n = 260). SCs were cemented with permanent (glass-ionomer cement; n = 376) or semipermanent cement (zinc oxide non-eugenol cement; n = 191) on standardized (n = 446) or customized (n = 121) abutments. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to calculate the incidence of decementation. Differences between survival curves were assessed with log-rank tests. Cox-regression analysis was performed to evaluate multiple risk factors.

Results

Of the 567 SCs, 22 failed because of technical complications and four because of implant loss. Loss of retention was observed in 50 SCs. Analysis revealed a 7% probability of loss of retention for zirconia and 16% for metal-ceramic SCs after 10 years (p = .011). After 5 years, loss of retention was higher for standardized abutments than for customized abutments (p = .014). The probability of loss of retention was higher with semipermanent than with permanent cement (p = .001). Cox-regression analysis revealed semipermanent cement as the only significant risk factor for SC failure (p = .026).

Conclusions

In contrast to semipermanent cement, permanent cement provides acceptable long-term retention of cemented implant-supported SCs. These possible positive effects of customized abutments have to be controlled with larger sample sizes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
11.60%
发文量
149
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Fixed Full‐Arch Maxillary Prostheses Supported by Four Versus Six Implants: 5‐Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Prospective Clinical Study on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Patients With Distal Free-End Implants. Conventional Versus CAD-CAM Surgical Guides. Regeneration of Chronic Alveolar Vertical Defects Using a Micro Dosage of rhBMP-2. An Experimental In Vivo Study. Comparison Between Conventional and Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Setup for Digital Implant Planning: Accuracy, Time-Efficiency, and User Experience. Influence of Metal Artifact Reduction Tool of Two Cone Beam CT on the Detection of Bone Graft Loss Around Titanium and Zirconium Implants-An Ex Vivo Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
×
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