Till sidans topp

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion
Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11 15:12

Tipsa en vän
Utskriftsversion

The role of dental implan… - Göteborgs universitet Till startsida
Webbkarta
Till innehåll Läs mer om hur kakor används på gu.se

The role of dental implant abutment design on the aesthetic outcome: preliminary 3-month post-loading results from a multicentre split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing two different abutment designs

Artikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift
Författare Marco Esposito
D. Cardaropoli
L. Gobbato
F. Scutella
A. Fabianelli
S. Mascellani
G. Delli Ficorelli
F. Mazzocco
L. Sbricoli
A. Trullenque-Eriksson
Publicerad i European Journal of Oral Implantology
Volym 11
Nummer/häfte 1
Sidor 77-87
ISSN 1756-2406
Publiceringsår 2018
Publicerad vid Institutionen för kliniska vetenskaper, Avdelningen för biomaterialvetenskap
Sidor 77-87
Språk en
Ämnesord abutment design, aesthetics, dental implants, controlled clinical-trial, modified zirconia abutments, soft-tissue, titanium abutments, reconstructions, crowns, Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine
Ämneskategorier Biomaterialvetenskap

Sammanfattning

Purpose: To evaluate whether there are aesthetic and clinical benefits to using a newly designed abutment (Curvomax), over a conventional control abutment (GingiHue). Materials and methods: A total of 49 patients, who required at least two implants, had two sites randomised according to a split-mouth design to receive one abutment of each type at seven different centres. The time of loading (immediate, early or delayed) and of prosthesis (provisional crowns of fixed prosthesis) was decided by the clinicians, but they had to restore both implants in a similar way. Provisional prostheses were replaced by definitive ones 3 months after initial loading, when the follow-up for the initial part of this study was completed. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications, pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference. Results: In total, 49 Curvomax and 49 GingiHue abutments were delivered. Two patients dropped out. No implant failure, prosthesis failure or complication was reported. There were no differences at 3 months post-loading for PES (difference = -0.15, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.25; P (paired t test) = 0.443) and marginal bone level changes (difference = -0.02 mm, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.16; P (paired t test) = 0.817). The majority of the patients (30) had no preference regarding the two abutment designs; 11 patients preferred the Curvomax, while five patients preferred the GingiHue abutments (P (McNemar test) = 0.210). Conclusions: The preliminary results of the comparison between two different abutment designs did not disclose any statistically significant differences between the evaluated abutments. However the large number of missing radiographs and clinical pictures casts doubt on the reliability of the results. Longer follow-ups of wider patient populations are needed to better understand whether there is an effective advantage with one of the two abutment designs.

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion|Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11
Dela:

På Göteborgs universitet använder vi kakor (cookies) för att webbplatsen ska fungera på ett bra sätt för dig. Genom att surfa vidare godkänner du att vi använder kakor.  Vad är kakor?