Abstract
Aim
The
aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate clinical,
radiographic, technical, esthetic, and patient-centered outcomes of
implants using two different restoration materials after 5–9 years.
Materials and Methods
The
study included 28 patients (test group: 13 patients with all-ceramic
crowns on aluminum oxide-based abutments; control group: 15 patients
with metal abutments on porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns). Evaluation of
patient satisfaction, clinical (periodontal probing depth, bleeding on
probing, plaque index, mucosal recession, and width of keratinized
mucosa), esthetical (papilla index, clinical crown length), technical
(loss of retention, marginal adaptation, chipping of ceramic, anatomical
shape, occlusal wear, color match), and radiological parameters were
assessed. The statistical analyses included comparison of all-ceramic
vs. metal abutments and between the groups using Mann–Whitney U-tests.
For esthetic parameters, changes over time were assessed using Friedman
test and post hoc Wilcoxon test of all complete cases.
Results
The
survival rate of the restoration was 100% in both groups. Patient's
satisfaction revealed 9.7 on the visual analog scale. A low satisfaction
correlated with low ratings in color or anatomical shape. The mucosal
recession in the test group was less than that in the control group. An
increase in distal papilla height in the year 0 to 1, and a decrease
from year 1 to 8, was detected. Sites, which received a soft tissue
graft, revealed stable papillae over the observation period. Clinical
crown length showed higher values in the control group.
Conclusions
Within
the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that all-ceramic
restorations reveal a high survival rate of 100% and show no difference
to metal after a mean observation period of 7.2 years.
Comments