Effect of Restoration Material on Marginal Bone Resorption Around Modified Anatomic Zirconia Dental Implants: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Ann Med Surg (Lond)

Publisher Wolters Kluwer

Specialty Medical Education

Date 2022 Sep 1

PMID 36045765

Authors

Alaa Aldebes

Nuraldeen Maher Al-Khanati

Jihad Abou Nassar

Nour Al-Deen Kharboutly

Feras Aldamman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to determine the effect of implant-supported porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and indirect-composite-resin (ICR) fixed dental prostheses on peri-implant marginal bone resorption (MBR) in custom-made anatomic modified zirconia dental implants.

Methods: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Participants with premolars indicated for dental extractions were recruited into this study to receive a single-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Modified anatomic zirconia implants with thorny-retentive surfaces were placed and loaded randomly after 3 months with either PFM or ICR crowns. Participants were recalled after 12 and 18 months for radiographic evaluation of peri-implant MBR. Implants survival was also reported.

Results: 18 out of 20 zirconia implants were included in all study phases. 18-month survival rate was 90%. After 12 months of implant placement, the mean MBR values were 0.53 (±0.21) mm and 0.60 (±0.14) mm in the ICR group compared to 0.67 (±0.16) mm and 0.61 (±0.27) mm in the PFM group. In the 18-month follow-up, the mean MBR values were 0.61 (±0.27) and 0.67 (±0.16) mm in the ICR group compared to 0.77 (±0.29) and 0.77 (±0.27) mm in the PFM group. No significant differences were found in MBR mean values between study groups at 12- and 18-month follow-up points.

Conclusion: This study showed that PFM and ICR crowns were viable zirconia-implant-supported restorations with no preference regarding MBR after 18 months. Nevertheless, long-term evaluations are warranted.

Citing Articles

Characteristics and Risk Factors for the Fracture of One-Piece Implants.

Fujii Y, Hatori A, Minami S, Kanno Y, Hamada H, Miyazawa T J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023; 22(4):1091-1098.

PMID: 38105858 PMC: 10719176. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-023-02033-z.

Biomaterials and Clinical Application of Dental Implants in Relation to Bone Density-A Narrative Review.

Khaohoen A, Sornsuwan T, Chaijareenont P, Poovarodom P, Rungsiyakull C, Rungsiyakull P J Clin Med. 2023; 12(21).

PMID: 37959389 PMC: 10649288. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216924.

Influence of Restorative Material on the Distribution of Loads to the Bone in Hybrid Abutment Crowns-In Vitro Study.

Martins R, Castro T, Lauria Dib L, Gehrke S, Mesquita A Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(7).

PMID: 37512000 PMC: 10384236. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59071188.

Assessment of Current Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude Towards Dental Implants as a Treatment Option for Replacement of Missing Teeth in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Meer Rownaq Ali A, Alzaidi T, Yaqoub Alghimlas R, Kamal Alenezi M, Albesher Y, Abdullah Alosaimi H Cureus. 2023; 15(1):e34189.

PMID: 36843825 PMC: 9951632. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34189.

References

Crespi R, Cappare P, Gherlone E, Romanos G . Immediate versus delayed loading of dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone: a clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23(4):753-8. View

Hassan B, Al-Khanati N, Bahhah H . Effect of lingual-based flap design on postoperative pain of impacted mandibular third molar surgery: Split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020; 25(5):e660-e667. PMC: 7473433. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.23666. View

Datte C, Tribst J, Dal Piva A, Nishioka R, Bottino M, Evangelhista A . Influence of different restorative materials on the stress distribution in dental implants. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10(5):e439-e444. PMC: 5971074. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54554. View

Guo C, Matinlinna J, Tang A . Effects of surface charges on dental implants: past, present, and future. Int J Biomater. 2012; 2012:381535. PMC: 3472554. DOI: 10.1155/2012/381535. View

Elsayed A, Yazigi C, Kern M, Chaar M . Mechanical behavior of nano-hybrid composite in comparison to lithium disilicate as posterior cement-retained implant-supported crowns restoring different abutments. Dent Mater. 2021; 37(8):e435-e442. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.03.015. View

Heller H, Sreter D, Arieli A, Beitlitum I, Pilo R, Levartovsky S . Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study. Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(3). PMC: 8836879. DOI: 10.3390/ma15030833. View

Swami V, Vijayaraghavan V, Swami V . Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016; 16(2):124-30. PMC: 4837777. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.176539. View

Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva J . One-year follow-up of first consecutive 100 zirconia dental implants in humans: a comparison of 2 different rough surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22(3):430-5. View

Al-Khanati N, Beit Z . Is dental autotransplantation underestimated and underused by Syrian dentists?. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021; 18:18. PMC: 8385419. DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.18. View

10.

Almehmadi N, Kutkut A, Al-Sabbagh M . What is the Best Available Luting Agent for Implant Prosthesis?. Dent Clin North Am. 2019; 63(3):531-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.02.014. View

11.

Guizzardi S, Galli C, Martini D, Belletti S, Tinti A, Raspanti M . Different titanium surface treatment influences human mandibular osteoblast response. J Periodontol. 2004; 75(2):273-82. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2004.75.2.273. View

12.

Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G . The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2007; 5(6):413-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2007.06.002. View

13.

Olley R, Andiappan M, Frost P . An up to 50-year follow-up of crown and veneer survival in a dental practice. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 119(6):935-941. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.06.009. View

14.

Bradley H, Owen B, Keys W . Zirconia implants: a promising alternative to titanium?. Evid Based Dent. 2021; 22(3):102-103. DOI: 10.1038/s41432-021-0202-2. View

15.

Al Qahtani W, Schille C, Spintzyk S, Al Qahtani M, Engel E, Geis-Gerstorfer J . Effect of surface modification of zirconia on cell adhesion, metabolic activity and proliferation of human osteoblasts. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2016; 62(1):75-87. DOI: 10.1515/bmt-2015-0139. View

16.

Hamzah N, Abd Razak N, Karim M, Gholizadeh H . A review of history of CAD/CAM system application in the production of transtibial prosthetic socket in developing countries (from 1980 to 2019). Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2021; 235(12):1359-1374. DOI: 10.1177/09544119211035200. View

17.

Karl M, Irastorza-Landa A . Does implant design affect primary stability in extraction sites?. Quintessence Int. 2017; 48(3):219-224. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a37690. View

18.

Pirker W, Wiedemann D, Lidauer A, Kocher A . Immediate, single stage, truly anatomic zirconia implant in lower molar replacement: a case report with 2.5 years follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 40(2):212-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.08.003. View

19.

Tanveer W, Ridwan-Pramana A, Molinero-Mourelle P, Forouzanfar T . Systematic Review of Clinical Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Orbital Prostheses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(21). PMC: 8582823. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111349. View

20.

Borgonovo A, Ferrario S, Maiorana C, Vavassori V, Censi R, Re D . A Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Zirconia Dental Implants: 10-Year Follow-Up. Int J Dent. 2022; 2021:7534607. PMC: 8739170. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7534607. View