These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cemented CeraOne and porcelain fused to TiAdapt abutment single-implant crown restorations: a 10-year comparative follow-up study.
    Author: Jemt T.
    Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2009 Dec; 11(4):303-10. PubMed ID: 18783414.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Long-term data comparing cemented and noncemented single-implant restorations has not been reported. AIM: To compare clinical and radiographic performance of single-implant crown restorations made by either directly baked porcelain to custom-made TiAdapt titanium abutments (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) (test) or cement crowns onto CeraOne (Nobel Biocare AB) abutments (control) after 10 years in function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 35 consecutive patients were provided with 41 turned single Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB) in the partially edentulous upper jaw. By random, 15 and 20 patients were provided with 18 test and 23 control implant crowns, respectively. Thereafter, clinical and radiographic data were collected and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: None of the implants were found loose during the follow-up period (100%). Few clinical problems were observed, and the overall average marginal bone loss was 0.26 mm (SD 0.64) during 10 years in function. After the final tightening of the crowns, no significant differences were observed between the test and control groups (p > .05). The head of the implants was placed on an average 6.3 mm (SD 2.24) below the cement/enamel junction of the adjacent teeth (range 2.5-10.0 mm). Implants with reported mechanical and/or mucosal problems or placed more apically in relation to the adjacent teeth did not present more bone loss as compared with implants with no problems or placed more coronally, respectively (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be no obvious clinical or radiographic differences between the test and control single-implant restorations during 10 years of follow-up. Occasionally, some restorations presented loose abutment screws and/or fistulas during follow-up. This implies a certain need for maintenance where a one-piece single-implant protocol (test) allows both for a simple clinical procedure at placement without cementation problems, as well as for an easy and simple maintenance of installed single implant crowns in long-term function.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]