Pascoal Ana Luísa de Barros, Paiva Kêiverton Rones Gurgel, de Araújo Lidya Nara Marques, Cristina Nogueira Marinho Liliane, Gurgel Bruno César de Vasconcelos, Dantas Wagner Ranier Maciel, Oliveira Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli da Costa, Calderon Patrícia Dos Santos
Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Feb;36(2):143-152. doi: 10.1111/clr.14370. Epub 2024 Oct 14.
To evaluate whether a two-piece abutment is equivalent to a one-piece in peri-implant esthetics, patients' satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) for implant-supported anterior single crown placement.
Thirty implants were allocated sequentially: 15 in the one-piece abutment group (OP) and 15 in the two-piece abutment group (TP). Peri-implant esthetics were evaluated by the pink esthetic score (PES) at temporary crown insertion (T1), after tissue conditioning (T2), and at 30 days after the final crown insertion (T3). OHRQOL was measured using the OHIP-14 and satisfaction was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, T1, and T3. Treatment was considered equivalent if the 95% coefficient interval (CI) for mean difference in PES was between -1.5 and +1.5 points. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney, SPANOVA, and Student's t-test, with Sidak's posttest, adopting p < 0.05.
No differences were found between the groups for any variable and during follow-up. A significant increase in OHRQOL and satisfaction was observed at T3, when compared to baseline (p < 0.05) for both groups. Significant improvements in peri-implant esthetics were also observed throughout the treatment, particularly after tissue conditioning (p < 0.05). Primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated for equivalence, and both abutment types were considered equivalent following the insertion of the temporary crowns.
Two-piece abutment was equivalent to one-piece abutment for peri-implant esthetics, quality of life, or the satisfaction of patients rehabilitated with metal-free single crowns. Tissue conditioning and final crown insertion appear to play a role in improving these outcomes.
评估两件式基台在种植体支持的前牙单冠修复中，在种植体周围美学、患者满意度以及口腔健康相关生活质量（OHRQOL）方面是否等同于一体式基台。
30颗种植体被依次分配：15颗在一体式基台组（OP），15颗在两件式基台组（TP）。在临时冠插入时（T1）、组织塑形后（T2）以及最终冠插入后30天（T3），通过粉色美学评分（PES）评估种植体周围美学。使用OHIP - 14测量OHRQOL，并在基线、T1和T3时使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估满意度。如果PES平均差异的95%置信区间（CI）在 - 1.5至 + 1.5分之间，则认为治疗等效。采用Mann - Whitney、SPANOVA和Student's t检验以及Sidak事后检验进行统计分析，p < 0.05。
两组在任何变量以及随访期间均未发现差异。与基线相比，两组在T3时OHRQOL和满意度均显著提高（p < 0.05）。在整个治疗过程中，种植体周围美学也有显著改善，尤其是在组织塑形后（p < 0.05）。对主要和次要结局进行了等效性评估，在插入临时冠后，两种基台类型均被认为等效。
对于种植体周围美学、生活质量或接受无金属单冠修复患者的满意度而言，两件式基台等同于一体式基台。组织塑形和最终冠插入似乎在改善这些结局方面发挥作用。
