2007PubMedRequires access

[Clinical evaluation of ceramic and titanium abutment for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown].

Zhiyong Li, Wei Niu, Wei Fang, Jian Hu, Yining Wang

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical performances of ceramic and titanium abutments for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown. METHODS: Nineteen patients with loss of maxillary anterior teeth were restored with implant-supported In-Ceramic all-ceramic single crowns. They were divided into two groups based on the type of abutment adopted, 8 in CerAdapt abutment group (group A) and 11 in TiAdapt abutment group (group B). Esthetic results were evaluated with modified USPHS standard. Mucosal bleeding and marginal bone loss of each crown were recorded at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after restoration respectively. All data were analyzed in SPSS 10.0 using Chi-square test and t-test. RESULTS: None of implants and all-ceramic crowns failed. One CerAdapt abutment fractured at 15 months after restoration. Eight crowns scored A in group A and 10 in group B. Soft tissues around implant appeared healthy. Mean value of marginal bone loss in 2 years was 0.70 mm for group A and 0.77 mm for group B. There was no significant differences in the esthetic results, mucosal bleeding, and marginal bone loss between group A and group B (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory esthetic results could be achieved with both CerAdapt ceramic abutment and TiAdapt titanium abutment for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown. No negative influence produced by abutments on peri-implant tissue was observed during short-term restoration.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical performances of ceramic and titanium abutments for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown. METHODS: Nineteen patients with loss of maxillary anterior teeth were restored with implant-supported In-Ceramic all-ceramic single crowns. They were divided into two groups based on the type of abutment adopted, 8 in CerAdapt abutment group (group A) and 11 in TiAdapt abutment group (group B). Esthetic results were evaluated with modified USPHS standard. Mucosal bleeding and marginal bone loss of each crown were recorded at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after restoration respectively. All data were analyzed in SPSS 10.0 using Chi-square test and t-test. RESULTS: None of implants and all-ceramic crowns failed. One CerAdapt abutment fractured at 15 months after restoration. Eight crowns scored A in group A and 10 in group B. Soft tissues around implant appeared healthy. Mean value of marginal bone loss in 2 years was 0.70 mm for group A and 0.77 mm for group B. There was no significant differences in the esthetic results, mucosal bleeding, and marginal bone loss between group A and group B (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory esthetic results could be achieved with both CerAdapt ceramic abutment and TiAdapt titanium abutment for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown. No negative influence produced by abutments on peri-implant tissue was observed during short-term restoration.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical performances of ceramic and titanium abutments for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown. METHODS: Nineteen patients with loss of maxillary anterior teeth were restored with implant-supported In-Ceramic all-ceramic single crowns. They were divided into two groups based on the type of abutment adopted, 8 in CerAdapt abutment group (group A) and 11 in TiAdapt abutment group (group B). Esthetic results were evaluated with modified USPHS standard. Mucosal bleeding and marginal bone loss of each crown were recorded at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after restoration respectively. All data were analyzed in SPSS 10.0 using Chi-square test and t-test. RESULTS: None of implants and all-ceramic crowns failed. One CerAdapt abutment fractured at 15 months after restoration. Eight crowns scored A in group A and 10 in group B. Soft tissues around implant appeared healthy. Mean value of marginal bone loss in 2 years was 0.70 mm for group A and 0.77 mm for group B. There was no significant differences in the esthetic results, mucosal bleeding, and marginal bone loss between group A and group B (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory esthetic results could be achieved with both CerAdapt ceramic abutment and TiAdapt titanium abutment for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown. No negative influence produced by abutments on peri-implant tissue was observed during short-term restoration.

Key concepts: Abutment, Crown (dentistry), Dentistry, Implant, Medicine, Ceramic, Bleeding on probing, Titanium

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Clinical evaluation of ceramic and titanium abutment for implant-supported all-ceramic single crown]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens