Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 2:80:104313.
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104313. eCollection 2022 Aug.

Effect of restoration material on marginal bone resorption around modified anatomic zirconia dental implants: A randomised controlled trial

Alaa Aldebes  1 , Nuraldeen Maher Al-Khanati  2   3 , Jihad Abou Nassar  1 , Nour Al-Deen Kharboutly  1 , Feras Aldamman  1
Affiliations

Effect of restoration material on marginal bone resorption around modified anatomic zirconia dental implants: A randomised controlled trial

Alaa Aldebes et al. Ann Med Surg (Lond). .

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.

Keywords: Crestal bone resorption; Dental anatomy; Dental implants; One-piece implants; Root-analogue implants; Zirconia implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The modified one-piece, custom-made, one-rooted anatomic dental implant design used in the present study.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flowchart of the present study illustrating the flow of participants through enrollment, allocation, follow-up, and statistical analysis phases. PFM, Porcelain fused to metal; ICR, Indirect composite resin.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Guo C.Y., Matinlinna J.P., Tang A.T. Effects of surface charges on dental implants: past, present, and future. Int. J. Biomater. 2012;2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/381535. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mello C.C., Lemos C.A.A., Verri F.R., Dos Santos D.M., Goiato M.C., Pellizzer E.P. Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017;46(9):1162–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.03.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Swami V., Vijayaraghavan V., Swami V. Current trends to measure implant stability. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2016;16(2):124–130. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.176539. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chrcanovic B.R., Albrektsson T., Wennerberg A. Bone quality and quantity and dental implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Prosthodont. (IJP) 2017;30(3):219–237. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5142. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. - DOI - PubMed