Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of angulated screw-retained and cemented single implant crowns(SIC) in esthetic region. Methods/Design: The study was a prospective, single center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients with the needs of single tooth restoration in esthetics region were recruited from Oct. 2018 to Aug. 2019. Sixty patients were enrolled in the present study and they were randomly assigned into two groups: angulated screw-retained group(AG, 30 patients) and cemented group (CG,30 patients). Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed on the day of final crowns delivery and 12 months later. Implant survival rate, marginal bone loss(MBL), pro-inflammatory cytokinesin peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF)(TNF-α, IL-6), mechanical complications, peri-implant conditions(mPI, PD, BOP%), pink esthetics score/white esthetics score (PES/ WES) and patients satisfaction were assessed.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
60
ASC abutment was used in AG;
prefabricated Ti abutment was used in CG
Jun-Yu Shi
Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China
Marginal bone loss
Peri-apical radiographs with paralleling technique wereperformed on the day offinal restorations delivery and 1-year visit. Implant length was used as calibration reference. The distance between restoration margin and the most coronal level of implant-bone contactwas recorded. Final result was calculated as themean value of the mesial and distal sites
Time frame: 1year
Survival rate.
Survival rates were defined as the percentage of success implants and remained crowns which never been replaced
Time frame: 1 year
Pro-inflammatory cytokinesin peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF)
we collected the patients' PICF with the paper strip (PerioPaper Strips; Oraflow Inc., Smithtown, NY, USA) at 1year follow-up to access differences in pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNF-α) between two groups.
Time frame: 1 year
Mechanical complications
Abutments or implants fracture and screw loosening or fracture
Time frame: 1 year
pocket probing depth(PD)
The depth of 6 sites（mesial, middle and distal of buccal/lingual ） was measured and the average value was calculated.
Time frame: 1 year
PES/WES
specific dentists were asked to give scores for variables of PES (Mesial papilla, distal papilla, level of soft-tissue margin, soft-tissue contour, alveolar process and soft-tissue color and texture) and WES (Tooth form, tooth volume/outline, color, surface texture and transparency) with the 2-1-0 scoring system. Final PES/WES was the sum the two. Total scores were defined as perfect rate (PES/WES≥22), acceptable rate (22\>PES/WES≥15) and unfavorable rate (PES/WES\<15).
Time frame: 1 year
Patient's satisfaction
patient's satisfaction(PS) with aesthetics, function and comfort of the restoration at 1-year visit. 0 score was extremely dissatisfied and 10 score was extremely satisfied. We also defined the final scores as perfect rate(PS≥9), acceptable rate(9\>PS≥6) and unfavorable rate (PS\<6).
Time frame: 1 year
bleeding on probing% (BOP%)
The BOP of 6 sites（mesial, middle and distal of buccal/lingual ） was probed and the percentage of BOP(+) was calculated.
Time frame: 1 year
modified plaque index (mPI)
Score 0; No detection of plaque Score 1: Plaque only recognized by running a probe across the smooth marginal surface of the implant. Implants covered by titanium spray in this area always score 1. Score 2: Plaque can be seen by the naked eye. Score 3: Abundance of soft matter.
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.