{"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, 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, 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}
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.
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.