Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of implant-supported zirconia crowns with a sintered veneering cap. Furthermore, the influence of the type of retention (screw-retained vs cemented single crowns) was analysed.

Materials and methods

Fifty-eight patients were accommodated with 114 implants, inserted in the molar and premolar regions. Zirconia-based crowns with a sintered veneering cap were either screw-retained (n = 53) or cemented (n = 61) on the implant. Recalls were performed every 6 months. The state of soft tissue was documented by the modified plaque and gingiva index (mPI) and sulcus bleeding index (mSBI). The restorations were evaluated for technical failures like veneering porcelain fractures, surface qualities and marginal fitting.

Results

Neither implant loss nor crown fractures occurred. After a mean clinical service time of 36.9 months, fractures of the veneering porcelain were registered in 1.8 % of the cases. The Kaplan-Meier survival probability regarding eventless restorations was 98.2 %. Chipping of the veneering porcelain was registered in two cemented crowns without statistical influence of the type of retention. The indices showed healthy soft periimplant tissues in both groups.

Conclusions

Implant-supported zirconia crowns with a sintered veneering cap demonstrated good clinical performance. The type of retention had no influence on technical complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Devaud V (2005) Guidelines for success with zirconia ceramics: the changing standards. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 17(8):508 510

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Della Bona A (2004) J.J. Mecholsky, Jr., and K.J. Anusavice, Fracture behavior of lithia disilicate- and leucite-based ceramics. Dent Mater 20(10):956–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Raigrodski AJ (2005) All-ceramic full-coverage restorations: concepts and guidelines for material selection. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 17(4):249–256 quiz 258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sorensen JA et al (1998) In-Ceram fixed partial dentures: three-year clinical trial results. J Calif Dent Assoc 26(3):207–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sorensen JA et al (1998) IPS empress crown system: three-year clinical trial results. J Calif Dent Assoc 26(2):130–136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coli P, Karlsson S (2004) Precision of a CAD/CAM technique for the production of zirconium dioxide copings. Int J Prosthodont 17(5):577–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA (2002) Retention of selected core materials to zirconia posts. Oper Dent 27(5):455–461

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ (2007) Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 98(5):389–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kohorst P et al (2007) Load-bearing capacity of all-ceramic posterior four-unit fixed partial dentures with different zirconia frameworks. Eur J Oral Sci 115(2):161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kohorst P et al (2008) Influence of cyclic fatigue in water on the load-bearing capacity of dental bridges made of zirconia. Acta Biomater 4(5):1440–1447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakamura K et al (2010) Zirconia as a dental implant abutment material: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 23(4):299–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bremer F et al (2011) In vivo biofilm formation on different dental ceramics. Quintessence Int 42(7):565–574

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Luthardt RG et al (2004) CAD/CAM-machining effects on Y-TZP zirconia. Dent Mater 20(7):655–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sailer I et al (2007) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):86–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sailer I et al (2007) Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 20(4):383–388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Larsson C, Vult P (2010) Von Steyern, Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems. Int J Prosthodont 23(6):555–561

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jung RE et al (2008) A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(2):119–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarz S et al (2012) Survival and chipping of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14(Suppl 1):e119–e125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ (2006) Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part II: zirconia veneering ceramics. Dent Mater 22(9):857–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aboushelib MN et al (2005) Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 21(10):984–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosentritt M et al (2009) Influence of substructure design and spacer settings on the in vitro performance of molar zirconia crowns. J Dent 37(12):978–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosentritt M et al (2009) Fracture performance of computer-aided manufactured zirconia and alloy crowns. Quintessence Int 40(8):655–662

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Swain MV (2009) Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain on all-ceramic dental crowns and fixed partial dentures. Acta Biomater 5(5):1668–1677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitter M, Mueller D, Rues S (2012) Chipping behaviour of all-ceramic crowns with zirconia framework and CAD/CAM manufactured veneer. J Dent 40(2):154–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmitter M, Mueller D, Rues S (2013) In vitro chipping behaviour of all-ceramic crowns with a zirconia framework and feldspathic veneering: comparison of CAD/CAM-produced veneer with manually layered veneer. J Oral Rehabil 40(7):519–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Du Q, Swain MV, Zhao K (2014) Fractographic analysis of anterior bilayered ceramic crowns that failed by veneer chipping. Quintessence Int 45(5):369–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Broseghini C et al (2014) Aesthetic functional area protection concept for prevention of ceramic chipping with zirconia frameworks. Int J Prosthodont 27(2):174–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sailer I et al (2012) Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(Suppl 6):163–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Larsson C, Vult P (2010) Von Steyern, and K. Nilner, A prospective study of implant-supported full-arch yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal mandibular fixed dental prostheses: three-year results. Int J Prosthodont 23(4):364–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pjetursson BE et al (2007) Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):97–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hammerle CH et al (1995) Threshold of tactile sensitivity perceived with dental endosseous implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 6(2):83–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ciftci Y, Canay S (2000) The effect of veneering materials on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15(4):571–582

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Linkevicius T et al (2011) The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 22(12):1379–1384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Agar JR et al (1997) Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 78(1):43–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson TG Jr (2009) The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 80(9):1388–1392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chee W, Jivraj S (2006) Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 201(8):501–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD (2003) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18(5):719–728

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chee WW, Torbati A, Albouy JP (1998) Retrievable cemented implant restorations. J Prosthodont 7(2):120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schiffman E et al (2014) Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for clinical and research applications: recommendations of the international RDC/TMD consortium network* and Orofacial pain special interest Groupdagger. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 28(1):6–27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hansson TL (2004) RDC/TMD criteria. J Orofac Pain 18(3):178 author reply 178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Khoury F, Happe A (2000) Soft tissue management in oral implantology: a review of surgical techniques for shaping an esthetic and functional peri-implant soft tissue structure. Quintessence Int 31(7):483–499

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Happe A et al (2015) Effects of different polishing protocols on the surface roughness of Y-TZP surfaces used for custom-made implant abutments: a controlled morphologic SEM and profilometric pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 113(5):440–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dornbush JR, Reiser GM, Ho DK (2014) Platform switching and abutment emergence profile modification on peri-implant soft tissue. Alpha Omegan 107(2):28–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Beuer F et al (2009) High-strength CAD/CAM-fabricated veneering material sintered to zirconia copings—a new fabrication mode for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 25(1):121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2008) Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 21(3):223–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Raigrodski AJ et al (2006) The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 96(4):237–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tinschert J et al (2008) Clinical behavior of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures made of DC-Zirkon: 3-year results. Int J Prosthodont 21(3):217–222

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Vult von Steyern P, Carlson P, Nilner K (2005) All-ceramic fixed partial dentures designed according to the DC-Zirkon technique. A 2-year clinical study. J Oral Rehabil 32(3):180–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Glauser R et al (2004) Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 17(3):285–290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sailer I et al (2015) All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 31(6):603–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pjetursson BE et al (2007) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):73–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weinstrasse 4, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Claudio Cacaci, Friederike Cantner & Peter Randelzhofer

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Thomas Mücke

  3. Briennerstrasse 7, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Jan Hajtó

  4. Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, University Charité Berlin, Assmannshauser Straße 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany

    Florian Beuer

Authors
  1. Claudio Cacaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike Cantner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Mücke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Randelzhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Hajtó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Florian Beuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Beuer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author FC and TM state that no conflict of interest exists.

The author CC lectures for Camlog and Ivoclar for an adequate honorarium.

The author PR lectures for Camlog and Ivoclar for an adequate honorarium.

The author JH lectures for Camlog and Ivoclar for an adequate honorarium.

The author FB lectures for Camlog and Ivoclar for an adequate honorarium and conducts third-party research for both companies.

Funding

The work was not funded.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involved were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the ethical review board of the Munich University (no. 434 14).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cacaci, C., Cantner, F., Mücke, T. et al. Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results. Clin Oral Invest 21, 1953–1959 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1982-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1982-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation