Utilization of Ceramic Inlays for Sealing Implant Prostheses Screw Access Holes: A Case-Control Study

Mihali, Sorin Gheorghe; Canjau, Silvana; Bratu, Elisabeta; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.11607/jomi.4733

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Restoration of completely and partially edentulous patients with dental implants is an established, well‐documented treatment option; 1 a recent retrospective study reported 100% survival rate and 96.4% success rate of single implant crowns after 8.5 years 2 . Prosthesis‐related complications include chipping of veneering ceramic, screw or crown loosening, component (screw) fractures, 3 interproximal contact loss, 4–10 and severe degradation/loss of the material that fills the screw access channel 3,11 . Restoration success and complication rates do not significantly differ with regards to the type of retention (cement‐ or screw‐type); however, management of complications is more predictable with screw‐retained restorations due to their retrievability 4 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Bompolaki

Edmondson

Katancik

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess clinical outcomes of screw‐retained implant‐supported restorations as well as patient satisfaction and Oral Health‐related Quality of Life (OHQoL), when treatment is performed in an academic setting by supervised predoctoral students. Materials and methods Ninety patients (n = 129 restorations) consented to participate in the study. The mean follow‐up period was 4.2 years (range: 4 months to 10.6 years) after crown insertion. All patients filled out a modified Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire, consisting of 14 questions (OHIP‐14). A comprehensive examination of the implant‐supported restoration was completed and restorative complications were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics, v25; IBM Corp). Restoration survival rates were calculated using Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis. Results The most frequent complication was loss of the mesial interproximal contact (32.2%). The overall restoration survival and success rates were 93.8% and 74.4%, respectively. The majority of patients (95.6%) reported high satisfaction with their decision to get implant treatment in the predoctoral clinic. Conclusions In the context of this study, clinical and patient‐based outcomes of implant treatment rendered in an academic setting are favorable and comparable to those reported in the literature for restorations completed by experienced dentists.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Bompolaki

Edmondson

Katancik

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies analyzed the effectiveness of a ceramic inlay to restore an access hole [38]. Above the screw, a channel of 3 to 4 mm is needed to achieve this technique and in some clinical situations, there is less than 2 mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Tanimura¹,

Suzuki

2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScrew retained implant prostheses seem to be an efficient restorative method to prevent peri-implantitis caused by cement excess around the abutment. The drawback of the screw-retained prostheses is the difficulty to realize an efficient access-hole filling functionally and aesthetically. Up to now, few in vitro and in vivo studies were reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical performances of two direct filling materials through a period of 12 months.MethodsTo pursue a previous in vitro evaluation, this in vivo 12 months prospective study followed up and compared the access-hole filling integrity of a modified 4-META (4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride)/MMA-TBB (methyl methacrylate-tri-n-butyl borane) – based resin (M4M) and a photo-polymerizing nano-hybrid composite resin (CR).Twenty-eight access-holes were filled with both materials respectively, then impressions and intra-oral photographs were taken at T = 0, T = 1 M (month), 3, 6, and 12 M. The access-hole surface measurement and the margin analysis (depth and angle) were carried out. The VAS (visual analogue scale) value on marginal discoloration and integrity at the baseline T = 0 and T = 12 M was recorded.ResultsThe mean values of the surface areas changes from T = 1 to T = 12 M were 83.3 ± 11.5% for group CR and 77.1 ± 13.1% for group M4M, respectively. (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.05, p = 0.046). The mean marginal depth at T = 12 M for group CR were 141.2 ± 125.5 μm and 132.1 ± 107.8 μm for the group M4M, respectively. (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05, p = 0.58). The mean values of the angle formed at the margin (T = 12 M) were for group CR 39.5 ± 19.4° and 28.2 ± 17.2° for group M4M, respectively (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.0001). The photographical analysis by VAS values showed no significant difference between CR and M4M groups (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05, p = 0.848).ConclusionsBased on intra- and extra-oral evaluations with the limitation, both CR and M4M combined with a ceramic primer are indicated as promising materials to fill the access-hole. Further long-term investigation is necessary to confirm this finding.

show abstract

“…A light-cure composite was used as a conventional sealing for pressed composite restoration and metal-ceramic restorations. For full ceramic restoration a ceramic inlay destined to close the access hole [11]. This ceramic piece should offer an excellent marginal fit and should have the same color as the screwed restoration ( fig.…”

Section: Clinical and Laboratory Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcomes in Implant-Supported Full-Arch Fixed Prosthesis Utilizing Pressed Composite Restorations

Mihali¹,

Bratu²

2017

Mat.Plast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author wants to evaluate the clinical advantages and limitations of the composite pressed on metal framework for full-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis in comparing with dental ceramic restorations. A total of thirty-two edentulous arches were restored. All complications were recorded at each follow-up visit up to 1 year after insertion. No complications were reported on pressed composite restoration. Complications were found in the ceramic restorations like chipping or fracture of the ceramic veneer. The composite pressed restorations are a treatment option for full arch restorations over implants, showing a better success rate in the present study in comparing with ceramic restorations.

show abstract

Utilization of Ceramic Inlays for Sealing Implant Prostheses Screw Access Holes: A Case-Control Study

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Clinical Outcomes in Implant-Supported Full-Arch Fixed Prosthesis Utilizing Pressed Composite Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About