Clinical application of personalized all-ceramic abutments in anterior implant aesthetic restorations

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2016.03.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To evaluate the aesthetic effects of restorations with personalized all-ceramic abutment in the anterior teeth zone.

Methods

Fifty-one patients with 60 missing anterior teeth in maxilla were selected. According to the wishes of patients, personalized titanium abutment and all ceramic crowns were used to restore 30 teeth in 26 patients in the control group: personalized zirconia abutment and all ceramic crowns were selected to restore 30 teeth in 25 patients in the experimental group. Clinical evaluation was scored by pink aesthetic index, white aesthetic index, gingival index and gingival index at 1, 6, and 12 months after the restorations were placed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0 software package.

Results

The pink aesthetic index and white aesthetic index were not significantly different in 1 and 6 months after operation between two groups. Pink aesthetic index (χ²= 6.696, P= 0.020) was higher in the experimental group (n= 30) than the control group (n= 28) ; white aesthetic index (χ²= 6.634, P= 0.021) was higher in the experimental group (n= 30) than the control group (n= 29) in twelve months after operation. Plaque index and gingival index had no significant differences in 1 month after operation between two groups. Plaque index (t= 3.128, P= 0.003) and gingival index (Z=-3.537, P= 0.000) were significantly different in six months after operation. Plaque index (t= 3.027, P= 0.004) and gingival index (Z=-6.785, P= 0.000) had significant difference in twelve months after operation.

Conclusion

Personalized all-ceramic abutments can effectively improve the aesthetic appearance of the implant denture in maxillary anterior zone.

Key words: Dental abutments, Zirconium, All-ceramic, Dental implants

Fengzhu Xian, Junlan Chen, Jinan Wu. Clinical application of personalized all-ceramic abutments in anterior implant aesthetic restorations[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2016, 10(03): 202-207.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2016.03.010

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2016/V10/I03/202

Figures/Tables 4

References 15

[1]	de Medeiros RA, Vechiato-Filho AJ, Pellizzer EP，et al. Analysis of the peri-implant soft tissues in contact with zirconia abutments：an evidence-based literature review[J]. J Contemp Dent Pract，2013，14(3):567-572.
[2]	Belser UC, Grütter L, Vailati F，et al. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria：a cross-sectional，retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2-to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores[J]. J Periodontol，2009，80(1):140-151.
[3]	罗智斌，曾融生，罗志宾，等.单个上前牙即刻种植即刻非功能修复的临床疗效观察[J/CD].中华口腔医学研究杂志：电子版，2009，3(4):435-442.
[4]	Gomes AL, Montero J. Zirconia implant abutments：a review[J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal，2011，16(1):e50-e55.
[5]	Ekfeldt A, Furst B, Carlsson GE. Zirconia abutments for single-tooth implant restorations：a retrospective and clinical follow-up study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2011，22(11):1308-1314.
[6]	Nascimento Cd, Pita MS, Fernandes FH，et al. Bacterial adhesion on the titanium and zirconia abutment surfaces[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2014，25(3):337-343.
[7]	van Brakel R, Cune MS, van Winkelhoff AJ，et al. Early bacterial colonization and soft tissue health around zirconia and titanium abutments：an in vivo study in man[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2011，22(6):571-577.
[8]	Nothdurft FP, Fontana D, Ruppenthal S，et al. Differential behavior of fibroblasts and epithelial cells on structured implant abutment materials：a comparison of materials and surface topographies[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2015，17(6):1237-1249.
[9]	Yüzügüllü B, Avci M. The implant-abutment interface of alumina and zirconia abutments[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2008，10(2):113-121.
[10]	Att W, Hoischen T, Gerds T，et al. Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2008，10(4):218-225.
[11]	Yüksel E, Zaimoğlu A. Influence of marginal fit and cement types on microleakage of all-ceramic crown systems[J]. Braz Oral Res，2011，25(3):261-226.
[12]	Gehrke P, Dhom G, Brunner J，et al. Zirconium implant abutments：fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening[J]. Quintessence Int，2006，37(1):19-26.
[13]	Yildirim M, Fischer H, Marx R，et al. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2003，90(4):325-331.
[14]	Att W, Yajima ND, Wolkewitz M，et al. Influence of preparation and wall thickness on the resistance to fracture of zirconia implant abutments[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2012，14(Suppl 1):196-203.
[15]	Thulasidas S, Givan DA, Lemons JE，et al. Influence of implant angulation on the fracture resistance of zirconia abutments[J]. J Prosthodont，2015，24(2):127-135.

组别	种植体数（枚）	术后1个月			术后6个月			术后12个月
组别	种植体数（枚）	非常满意 (PES≥12)	比较满意（8≤PES≤11）	不满意 (PES<8)	非常满意 (PES≥12)	比较满意（8≤PES≤11）	不满意 (PES<8)	非常满意 (PES≥12)	比较满意（8≤PES≤11）	不满意 (PES<8)
对照组	30	7(23)	23(77)	0	3(10)	26(90)	1	1(33)	27(67)	2
实验组	30	10(33)	20(67)	0	9(30)	21(70)	0	8(27)	22(73)	0
χ²值	?	?	0.739	?	?	4.371	?	?	6.696	?
P值	?	?	0.390	?	?	0.104	?	?	0.020	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	术后1个月			术后6个月			术后12个月
组别	种植体数（枚）	非常满意 (PES≥12)	比较满意（8≤PES≤11）	不满意 (PES<8)	非常满意 (PES≥12)	比较满意（8≤PES≤11）	不满意 (PES<8)	非常满意 (PES≥12)	比较满意（8≤PES≤11）	不满意 (PES<8)
对照组	30	7(23)	23(77)	0	3(10)	26(90)	1	1(33)	27(67)	2
实验组	30	10(33)	20(67)	0	9(30)	21(70)	0	8(27)	22(73)	0
χ²值	?	?	0.739	?	?	4.371	?	?	6.696	?
P值	?	?	0.390	?	?	0.104	?	?	0.020	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	术后1个月			术后6个月			术后12个月
组别	种植体数（枚）	非常满意 (WES≥12)	比较满意（8≤WES≤11）	不满意 (WES<8)	非常满意 (WES≥12)	比较满意（8≤WES≤11）	不满意 (WES<8)	非常满意 (WES≥12)	比较满意（8≤WES≤11）	不满意 (WES<8)
对照组	30	25(83%)	5(17%)	0	23(77%)	7(23%)	0	20(67%)	9(33%)	1
实验组	30	29(97%)	1(3%)	0	29(97%)	1(3%)	0	28(93%)	2(7%)	0
χ²值	?	?	1.667	?	?	3.606	?	?	6.634	?
P值	?	?	0.197	?	?	0.058	?	?	0.021	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	术后1个月			术后6个月			术后12个月
组别	种植体数（枚）	非常满意 (WES≥12)	比较满意（8≤WES≤11）	不满意 (WES<8)	非常满意 (WES≥12)	比较满意（8≤WES≤11）	不满意 (WES<8)	非常满意 (WES≥12)	比较满意（8≤WES≤11）	不满意 (WES<8)
对照组	30	25(83%)	5(17%)	0	23(77%)	7(23%)	0	20(67%)	9(33%)	1
实验组	30	29(97%)	1(3%)	0	29(97%)	1(3%)	0	28(93%)	2(7%)	0
χ²值	?	?	1.667	?	?	3.606	?	?	6.634	?
P值	?	?	0.197	?	?	0.058	?	?	0.021	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	术后1个月		术后6个月		术后12个月
组别	种植体数（枚）	菌斑指数	牙龈指数	菌斑指数	牙龈指数	菌斑指数	牙龈指数
对照组	30	0.23 ± 0.02	0.26 ± 0.05	0.30 ± 0.08	0.36 ± 0.06	0.32 ± 0.08	0.74 ± 0.12
实验组	30	0.23 ± 0.14	0.25 ± 0.05	0.25 ± 0.04	0.30 ± 0.05	0.26 ± 0.04	0.47 ± 0.04
检验值	?	t = 0.266	Z = -0.652	t = 3.128	Z = -3.537	t = 3.027	Z = -6.785
P值	?	0.791	0.514	0.003	0.000	0.004	0.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export