Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level, Technical and Biological Complications Between Screw-retained and Cement-retained All-ceramic Implant-supported Crowns on Zirconia Abutment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal J Indian Prosthodont Soc

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Jan 24

PMID 38263555

Authors

Shruti S Potdukhe

Janani M Iyer

Jyoti B Nadgere

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated on zirconia abutment at different follow-up periods.

Materials And Methods: Independent search was conducted in Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and PubMed/PubMed Central/MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine for prospective studies and randomized controlled trials published between January 2014 and June 2023 evaluating the marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated on zirconia abutment. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the quantitative data on the marginal bone level and biological complications.

Results: A total of eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and six studies for quantitative synthesis. For marginal bone level, no statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.83 and P = 0.69, respectively) during the follow-up period of 3 years and 5 years. For probing depth, the cemented group showed more amount of probing depth than the screw-retained group at a follow-up period of 3 years (P < 0.05) whereas no statistically significant difference was observed at a follow-up period of 5 years (P = 0.73). For bleeding on probing, the cemented group showed more probing depth than the screw-retained group at a follow-up period of 5 years (P = 0.10).

Conclusion: The evidence suggests that the screw-retained group showed no statistically significant difference in marginal bone level, comparatively fewer biological complications, and relatively higher technical complications than the cemented group at different follow-up periods.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of zirconia implants in fibula and deep circumflex iliac artery flaps: a prospective 1.5-year follow-up study.

Kniha K, Mohlhenrich S, Peters F, Heitzer M, Winnand P, Bock A Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 29(1):21.

PMID: 39694985 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-06092-5.

References

Anusavice K . Standardizing failure, success, and survival decisions in clinical studies of ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater. 2011; 28(1):102-11. PMC: 3271854. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.012. View

Kraus R, Espuelas C, Hammerle C, Jung R, Sailer I, Thoma D . Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022; 33(5):537-547. PMC: 9313572. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13913. View

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J . Evaluation of accuracy between extraoral Gothic arch tracing and various other methods assessing horizontal condylar guidance angle in completely edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023; 23(4):322-334. PMC: 10705011. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_216_23. View

Khan K, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G . Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003; 96(3):118-21. PMC: 539417. DOI: 10.1177/014107680309600304. View

Lombardi T, Berton F, Salgarello S, Barbalonga E, Rapani A, Piovesana F . Factors Influencing Early Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Positioned Subcrestally: A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(8). PMC: 6723035. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8081168. View

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):89. PMC: 8008539. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4. View

Methley A, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S . PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:579. PMC: 4310146. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0. View

Zarone F, Di Mauro M, Ausiello P, Ruggiero G, Sorrentino R . Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1):134. PMC: 6610968. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x. View

Schiavo J . PROSPERO: An International Register of Systematic Review Protocols. Med Ref Serv Q. 2019; 38(2):171-180. DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072. View

10.

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J . Evaluation of implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift done with the osseodensification and osteotome technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2023; . DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.021. View

11.

von Hippel P . The heterogeneity statistic I(2) can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15:35. PMC: 4410499. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z. View

12.

Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Buhn S, Pieper D . Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):132. PMC: 6599339. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0. View

13.

Kraus R, Epprecht A, Hammerle C, Sailer I, Thoma D . Cemented vs screw-retained zirconia-based single implant reconstructions: A 3-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21(4):578-585. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12735. View

14.

Nilsson A, Johansson L, Lindh C, Ekfeldt A . One-piece internal zirconia abutments for single-tooth restorations on narrow and regular diameter implants: A 5-year prospective follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19(5):916-925. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12515. View

15.

Thoma D, Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Gil A, Jung R, Hammerle C . Randomized controlled clinical study of veneered zirconia abutments for single implant crowns: Clinical, histological, and microbiological outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20(6):988-996. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12674. View

16.

Pjetursson B, Bragger U, Lang N, Zwahlen M . Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18 Suppl 3:97-113. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x. View

17.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(4):264-9, W64. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. View

18.

Peters M, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty C, Hempel S, Horsley T . Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):263. PMC: 8499488. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3. View

19.

Meader N, King K, Llewellyn A, Norman G, Brown J, Rodgers M . A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation. Syst Rev. 2014; 3:82. PMC: 4124503. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-82. View

20.

Amorfini L, Storelli S, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Romeo E . Comparison of Cemented vs Screw-Retained, Customized Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacture Zirconia Abutments for Esthetically Located Single-Tooth Implants: A 10-Year Randomized Prospective Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(4):359–366. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5305. View