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
. 2025 Jun;27(3):e70068.
doi: 10.1111/cid.70068.

Full-Zirconia Single Molar Implant-Supported Restorations With Angulated Screw Channel Abutments: 5-Year Results of a Prospective Case Series Study

Jantien H W de Beus  1   2   3 , Henny J A Meijer  2   3 , Christiaan W P Pol  3 , Ulf Schepke  3 , Gerry M Raghoebar  2 , Marco S Cune  3   4
Affiliations

Full-Zirconia Single Molar Implant-Supported Restorations With Angulated Screw Channel Abutments: 5-Year Results of a Prospective Case Series Study

Jantien H W de Beus et al. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: Full-zirconia (ZrO2) restorations were introduced to address the most common complications in implant-supported restorations in the posterior region: fractures of the veneering. The aim of this prospective case series study was to evaluate full-ZrO2 implant-supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments (ASCs) in the molar region of the maxilla and mandible and their effect on hard and soft peri-implant tissues, and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs), during a 5-year follow-up period.

Material and methods: Patients with a single missing molar in the maxilla or mandible with sufficient bone volume and an implant site free of infection were included. Thirty consecutive patients received a parallel-walled implant with conical connection. After 3 months, a full contour screw-retained ZrO2 restoration with an ASC was fabricated and connected to the implant. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed 1 month, 12 months, and 5 years after placement of the restoration. Implant success probability was calculated using Kaplan-Meier statistics, and confidence intervals were given over the results at 5 years. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were scored prior to treatment and at follow-up intervals. The primary outcome measure was the success of the restoration.

Results: All patients could be evaluated after 5 years. Success probability at 5 years was 73.0% (95% CI [57.0%; 89.0%]). Implant survival was 100% and restoration survival was 97%. The encountered technical complications were easily repairable (n = 12). From loading to the 5-years follow-up, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.30 mm (SD 0.52 mm). Mean scores for plaque, calculus, peri-implant mucosa, bleeding, and pocket probing depth were low, depicting healthy peri-implant conditions. PROMs had significantly improved, and the mean overall score was 9.1 ± 0.7 (scale 1-10).

Conclusion: Full-ZrO2 implant-supported restorations with ASC abutments employed in this study, when applied in maxillary and mandibular posterior regions, show a 97% survival rate. However, a high incidence rate of technical complications (n = 12) was noted during the 5-year observation period.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Success probability (%) over time (months) with 95% CI of the implant supported full‐ZrO2 crowns with ASC abutments.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Radiographic images of the implant 1 month (T01), 1 year (T12) and 5 years (T60) after crown placement, with a reference line for the marginal bone level measurement on the calibrated intraoral radiographs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Sailer I., Barbato L., Mojon P., et al., “Single and Partial Tooth Replacement With Fixed Dental Prostheses Supported by Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Outcome Measures Used in Clinical Trials in the Last 10 Years,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 34 (2023): 22–37, 10.1111/clr.13926. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanz M., Noguerol B., Sanz‐Sanchez I., et al., “European Association for Osseointegration Delphi Study on the Trends in Implant Dentistry in Europe for the Year 2030,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 30, no. 5 (2019): 476–486, 10.1111/clr.13431. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pjetursson B. E., Sailer I., Latyshev A., Rabel K., Kohal R. J., and Karasan D., “A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Evaluating the Survival, the Failure, and the Complication Rates of Veneered and Monolithic All‐Ceramic Implant‐Supported Single Crowns,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 32, no. Suppl 21 (2021): 254–288, 10.1111/clr.13863. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jung R. E., Zembic A., Pjetursson B. E., Zwahlen M., and Thoma D. S., “Systematic Review of the Survival Rate and the Incidence of Biological, Technical, and Aesthetic Complications of Single Crowns on Implants Reported in Longitudinal Studies With a Mean Follow‐Up of 5 Years,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 23, no. Suppl 6 (2012): 2–21, 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ma S. and Fenton A., “Screw‐ Versus Cement‐Retained Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Prosthodontic Maintenance and Complications,” International Journal of Prosthodontics 28, no. 2 (2015): 127–145, 10.11607/ijp.3947. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources