Schnutenhaus Sigmar, Weinmann Marla, Römer Max, Luthardt Ralph G
Center for Dentistry, Dr. Schnutenhaus Community Health Center (CHC) GmbH, Breiter Wasmen 10, 78247 Hilzingen, Germany.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of Dentistry, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Dent J (Basel). 2025 Sep 17;13(9):430. doi: 10.3390/dj13090430.
This single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the impact of two crown materials-lithium disilicate (LS2) and a polymer-infiltrated hybrid ceramic (HC)-on the marginal bone loss (MBL) and the technical complications in implant-supported single-tooth restorations over a three-year period. Sixty patients with posterior single-tooth gaps were randomly assigned to receive either LS2 or HC crowns on iSy (Camlog) implants. All of the restorations were fabricated as CAD/CAM-based hybrid abutment crowns bonded to prefabricated titanium bases. Standardized radiographs were taken at the baseline (T0) and at three years (T1) to assess the MBL using ImageJ software. The technical complications were prospectively recorded. The data analysis was descriptive and exploratory. Fifty-eight cases were available for the final evaluation. The three-year implant survival rate was 100%. The mean marginal bone remodeling was minimal (mesial: LS2 0.15 mm, HC 0.08 mm; distal: LS2 0.13 mm, HC 0.12 mm), with no statistically significant intergroup differences. Bone apposition was observed in 74.1% of the cases. The male patients showed a significantly greater mesial bone loss ( = 0.024). Technical complications occurred more frequently in the HC group, including crown fractures (25%), decementation (17.9%), and screw loosening (14.3%). In the LS2 group, only screw loosening (12.5%) was observed. The lithium disilicate-based hybrid abutment crowns demonstrated a high clinical reliability with stable peri-implant bone and fewer technical complications over three years. In contrast, the hybrid ceramic crowns were associated with a higher rate of mechanical failure. Material selection should therefore be a key consideration in planning implant-supported single-tooth restorations.
这项单中心随机对照临床试验评估了两种牙冠材料——二硅酸锂(LS2)和聚合物渗透混合陶瓷(HC)——在三年时间里对种植体支持的单颗牙修复体边缘骨丢失(MBL)和技术并发症的影响。60例后牙单颗牙间隙患者被随机分配,在iSy(Camlog)种植体上接受LS2或HC牙冠修复。所有修复体均制作成基于CAD/CAM的混合基台牙冠,粘结到预制钛基台上。在基线(T0)和三年(T1)时拍摄标准化X线片,使用ImageJ软件评估MBL。前瞻性记录技术并发症。数据分析采用描述性和探索性分析。58例可用于最终评估。三年种植体存活率为100%。平均边缘骨重塑极小(近中:LS2为0.15mm,HC为0.08mm;远中:LS2为0.13mm,HC为0.12mm),组间差异无统计学意义。74.1%的病例观察到骨附着。男性患者近中骨丢失明显更多(P = 0.024)。HC组技术并发症发生频率更高,包括牙冠骨折(25%)、松动(17.9%)和螺钉松动(14.3%)。在LS2组,仅观察到螺钉松动(12.5%)。基于二硅酸锂的混合基台牙冠在三年内表现出较高的临床可靠性,种植体周围骨稳定,技术并发症较少。相比之下,混合陶瓷牙冠与更高的机械故障率相关。因此,在规划种植体支持的单颗牙修复时,材料选择应是关键考虑因素。