Peri-implant conditions and marginal bone loss around cemented and screw-retained single implant crowns in posterior regions: A retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years follow-up

Jun-Yu Shi, Jie-Ni, Long-Fei Zhuang, Xiao-Meng Zhang, Lin-Feng Fan, Hong-Chang Lai, Jun-Yu Shi, Jie-Ni, Long-Fei Zhuang, Xiao-Meng Zhang, Lin-Feng Fan, Hong-Chang Lai

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify the peri-implant conditions (bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket probing depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI)) and marginal bone loss (MBL, marginal bone level change between follow-up and occlusal loading) around cemented and screw-retained posterior single crowns on tissue-level implants. The study was a retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years (mean 2.5 years) follow-up. Patients with either cemented or screw-retained crowns in posterior regions were included. Implant survival, technical complications, BOP, PPD, mPI, MBL, biologic complications (peri-implant mocositis and peri-implantitis) were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the difference between the screw-retained group (SG) and cemented group (CG). 176 patients (SG: 94, CG: 82) were included. The implant survival rates were 100% in SG and 98.8% in CG. Prosthetic screw loosening was found in 8 restorations (8.7%) at follow-up visit. Peri-implant mucositis rate was significantly higher in the SG group (42.1%) than that in the CG group (32.2%) (P = 0.04). Six patients (6.38%) in the screw-retained group and 5 patients (6.10%) in the cemented group were diagnosed with peri-implantitis, the difference did not reach statistical significance (P>0.05). No significant difference of PPD, mPI and MBL were found between two groups (P = 0.11, 0.13 and 0.08, respectively). High implant survival rates were achieved in both groups. Cemented single crowns on tissue-level implants showed comparable peri-implant conditions in comparison with two-piece screw-retained crowns. Well-designed prospective cohort or randomized controlled clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to confirm the result.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Radiograph that identified a failed…
Fig 1. Radiograph that identified a failed implant (3.2 years after implant surgery).
Fig 2
Fig 2
Radiographs in SG group: a) baseline, b) follow-up, and in CG group: c) baseline, d) follow-up.
Fig 3. Occlusal view of a crown…
Fig 3. Occlusal view of a crown with a loose abutment screw and swollen mucosa around implant platform.
Fig 4. Comparison of clinical and radiological…
Fig 4. Comparison of clinical and radiological parameters between cemented and screw-retained crowns, *, significant difference between two groups.

References

    1. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clinical oral implants research. 2008. February;19(2):119–30. doi:
    1. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF. A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2014. January;23(1):1–9.
    1. Kotsakis G, Konstantinidis I. Letter to the Editor: Authors' Response. Journal of periodontology. 2016. September;87(9):999–1001. doi:
    1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 1986. Summer;1(1):11–25.
    1. Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, Taylor TD. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2001. Nov-Dec;16(6):793–8.
    1. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clinical oral implants research. 2012. October;23 Suppl 6:163–201.
    1. Millen C, Bragger U, Wittneben JG. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2015. Jan-Feb;30(1):110–24.
    1. Pesce P, Canullo L, Grusovin MG, de Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Pera P. Systematic review of some prosthetic risk factors for periimplantitis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2015. September;114(3):346–50. doi:
    1. Dalago HR, Schuldt Filho G, Rodrigues MA, Renvert S, Bianchini MA. Risk indicators for Peri-implantitis. A cross-sectional study with 916 implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2017. February;28(2):144–150. doi:
    1. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2014. November;41(11):853–74. doi:
    1. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clinical oral implants research. 2013. January;24(1):71–6. doi:
    1. Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2014;29 Suppl:308–24.
    1. Lee JH, Lee JB, Kim MY, Yoon JH, Choi SH, Kim YT. Mechanical and biological complication rates of the modified lateral-screw-retained implant prosthesis in the posterior region: an alternative to the conventional Implant prosthetic system. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2016. April;8(2):150–7. doi:
    1. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions—a systematic review. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84–98.
    1. Weber HP, Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient? The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2007;22 Suppl:140–72.
    1. Korsch M, Walther W. Retrospective analysis of loosening of cement-retained vs screw-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions. Quintessence international. 2015. Jul-Aug;46(7):583–9. doi:
    1. Kotsakis G, Zhang L, Gaillard P, Raedel M, Walter MH, Konstantinidis IK. Investigation of the Association Between Cement-Retention and Prevalent Peri-Implant Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of periodontology. 2015. November 5:1–14.
    1. Rismanchian M, Hatami M, Badrian H, Khalighinejad N, Goroohi H. Evaluation of microgap size and microbial leakage in the connection area of 4 abutments with Straumann (ITI) implant. The Journal of oral implantology. 2012. December;38(6):677–85. doi:
    1. Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Vindasiute E, Linkeviciene L, Apse P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2013. November;24(11):1179–84. doi:
    1. Kotsakis GA, Zhang L, Gaillard P, Raedel M, Walter MH, Konstantinidis IK. Investigation of the Association Between Cement Retention and Prevalent Peri-Implant Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of periodontology. 2016. March;87(3):212–20. doi:
    1. Gu YX, Shi JY, Zhuang LF, Qiao SC, Xu YY, Lai HC. Esthetic outcome and alterations of soft tissue around single implant crowns: a 2-year prospective study. Clinical oral implants research. 2016. January;27(1):120–5.
    1. Zhao X, Qiao S-C, Shi J-Y, Uemura N, Arai K, Lai H-C. Evaluation of the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of Straumann®Standard Plus implants supported single crowns placed in non-augmented healed sites in the anterior maxilla: a 5–8 years retrospective study. Clinical oral implants research. 2016. January;27(1):106–12. doi:
    1. Sgolastra F, Petrucci A, Severino M, Gatto R, Monaco A. Periodontitis, implant loss and peri-implantitis. A meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2015. April;26(4):e8–16. doi:
    1. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2016. April;115(4):419–27 doi:

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir