A prospective clinical evaluation of different single‐tooth restoration designs on osseointegrated implants. A 3‐year follow‐up of Brånemark implants.

Abstract

Since single-tooth implant restorations were introduced 12 years ago (Jemt 1986), there has been continuous development both in the technical design and the aesthetic outcome of the treatment. In order to ensure high quality in single-tooth implant treatments a clinical follow-up study was carried out on patients treated with modifications to the original regimen. In this study 69 consecutive patients were provided with 80 single-tooth implant restorations. The patients were followed for 3 years. There was continuous development of the prosthetic design during the time of the study, allowing us to analyse possible prognostic differences for the different prosthetic treatments. This study confirms earlier reports which describe the single-tooth implant treatment as a safe method with few surgical complications and minimal marginal bone loss. Only 1 implant was lost during the follow-up period and the average marginal bone loss was 0.48 mm over the 3-year follow-up period. Crowns veneered with acrylic and with gold casted directly to the abutments, screwed onto the implants, led to recurring prosthetic complications and gave an appearance of rapid ageing. The first generation of crowns made following the Cera-One design, sometimes produced a gap between the crown and the abutment associated with significant marginal bone loss during the first year. Few surgical or prosthetic complications were noted with cemented all-ceramic constructions, although the number of these crowns in this study was limited.

The Integrated Abutment Crown™, a Screwless and Cementless Restoration for Single‐Tooth Implants: A Report on a New Technique

“…A gap between the crown and the implant or abutment has been associated with greater marginal bone loss during the first year of function. 26 Another factor that should be considered is the possibility of excess cement flowing into the gingival sulcus. 15,27,28 Unlike teeth, implants do not have a connective tissue attachment zone that extends 1 mm above the bone; 29 the excess cement can easily go beyond the sulcus and reach closer to the bone.…”

Mechanical testing of thin-walled zirconia abutments

“…Historically, the external hexagon connection was designed to provide an engagement method for implant placement and anti-rotational feature for single-unit prosthesis, and is likely the functioning system with the longest clinical follow-up 15,20,21 . Despite the high survival rates of titanium abutments, the esthetic outcome should also be considered as a success factor, especially in the anterior esthetic zone.…”

Mechanics of the taper integrated screwed-in (TIS) abutments used in dental implants

“…12,13 Various longitudinal follow-up studies involving the abutment screw CeraOne (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) show that the screw complications have been avoided with this design in single tooth restorations. [14][15][16][17] The attachment mechanism using a retention screw is now widely used by the clinicians, 6 perhaps in great part based on the reliability of the screw retention system. The TIS type abutment offers a high resistance to loosening torques in single tooth replacements, as it will be shown in this paper.…”