Section of Oral Rehabilitation, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Aug;33(8):792-803. doi: 10.1111/clr.13960. Epub 2022 Jun 11.
To compare 5-year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic restorations.
Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5-year follow-up. The prosthetic treatment on single-tooth implants was randomly assigned to all-ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal-ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient-reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP-49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow-up examination.
At the 5-year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: -0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC- and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different.
The biological, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes for implant-supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5-years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments.
比较单颗牙种植体支持的全瓷与金属陶瓷修复体的 5 年生物学、技术、美学和患者报告结果。
30 名 63 颗前磨牙缺失的患者参与了 5 年的随访。单颗种植体的修复治疗随机分配为氧化锆基台上的全瓷冠（AC=31）或金属基台上的金属陶瓷冠（MC=32）。所有患者均在基线、植入后 1、3 和 5 年进行临床检查。临床和影像学记录了生物学、技术和美学结果，包括并发症。使用 OHIP-49 问卷在治疗前和每次随访时记录患者报告的结果。
在 5 年的检查中，种植体的存活率为 100%，AC 的存活率为 100%，MC 的存活率为 97%。5 年后边缘骨丢失较小，且无统计学差异（p=0.056），AC（平均：0.3，SD：1.1）和 MC（平均：-0.1，SD：0.4）修复体之间。基于边缘骨丢失的种植体成功率为 AC 修复体 77.4%，MC 修复体 93.7%。MC 修复体的边缘适应性明显优于 AC 修复体（p=0.025）。AC 和 MC 修复体的美学和患者报告结果无显著差异。
植入物支持的 AC 和 MC 修复体的生物学、美学和患者报告结果在 5 年后是成功的，且无显著差异。用钛基台粘结的 MC 冠的边缘适应性明显优于粘结在氧化锆基台上的氧化锆冠修复体。
