The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Technical complications of cement-retained implant-supported single crowns and splinted crowns with zirconia frameworks

지르코니아 프레임워크를 이용한 시멘트 유지형 임플란트-지지 단일 크라운과 연결 크라운의 보철적 합병증

  • You, Sang-Choon (Department of Prosthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University) ;
  • Bae, Jung-Yoon (Department of Prosthodontics, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University)
  • 유상춘 (가천대학교 길병원 치과보철과) ;
  • 배정윤 (가천대학교 길병원 치과보철과)
  • Received : 2016.06.28
  • Accepted : 2016.09.02
  • Published : 2017.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was to assess clinically the success rates and technical complications of cement-retained implant-supported single crowns and splinted crowns with zirconia frameworks. Materials and methods: 75 (single crowns: 51, splinted crowns: 24) cement-retained implant-supported single crowns and splinted crowns with zirconia frameworks which were restored in 67 patients were investigated for the evaluation of the success rates and technical complications. All restorations were cemented with temporary cement. Age, gender, restoration position, opposing teeth, restoration type were assessed as possible factors affecting technical complications. Results: During the mean observation period of 22.2 months, cumulative success rates of all restorations were 66.9 (73.2 - 60.6)%. Retention loss was found in 16 restorations (single crowns: 14, splinted crowns: 2), abutment screw loosening and veneer porcelain fracture were found in each 2 single crowns, respectively. According to a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of single crowns and splinted crowns, the cumulative success rates were 58.9 (66.6 - 51.2)%, 87.5 (96.1 - 78.9)%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference. The other possible factors did not have a significant effect on the technical complications. Conclusion: Retention loss was the most frequent technical complication. Abutment screw loosening and veneer porcelain fracture were found rarely in single crowns only. Age, gender, restoration position, and antagonist did not have significant effect on the technical complications. Splinted crowns had a higher success rate than single crowns.

목적: 지르코니아 프레임워크를 이용한 시멘트 유지형 임플란트-지지 단일 크라운과 연결 크라운의 성공률과 보철적 합병증을 임상적으로 평가하는 것이다. 대상 및 방법: 67명의 환자에서 75개 수복물(단일 51개, 연결 24개)을 지르코니아 프레임워크를 이용한 시멘트 유지형 임플란트-지지 단일 크라운 혹은 연결 크라운으로 수복했다. 모든 수복물은 임시 시멘트로 합착했다. 보철적 합병증과 성공률을 조사하고, 나이, 성별, 보철물의 위치, 대합치, 보철물의 유형이 보철적 합병증에 미치는 영향을 평가했다. 결과:평균 22.2개월의 관찰 결과, 최종 누적 성공률은 66.9 (73.2 - 60.6)%였다. 유지 상실이 16개 보철물(단일 14개, 연결 2개)에서 나타났고, 지대주 나사 풀림과 비니어 도재 파절은 단일 크라운에서만 각각 2개의 보철물에서 나타났다. 단일 크라운과 연결 크라운에 대한 Kaplan-Meier 생존분석 결과, 최종 누적 성공률은 각각 58.9 (66.6 - 51.2)%, 87.5 (96.1 - 78.9)%를 보여 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 있었지만, 다른 고려 요인들은 보철적 합병증에 통계적으로 유의성이 없었다. 결론: 보철적 합병증은 유지 상실이 가장 많았고, 지대주 나사 풀림 및 비니어 도재 파절은 단일 크라운에서만 비교적 적게 관찰되었다. 나이, 성별, 보철물의 위치, 대합치에 따른 보철적 합병증에 미치는 영향은 유의한 차이가 없었지만, 상부 보철물을 연결 크라운으로 제작했을 때, 단일 크라운으로 제작한 경우보다 높은 성공률을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Vult von Steyern P, Ebbesson S, Holmgren J, Haag P, Nilner K. Fracture strength of two oxide ceramic crown systems after cyclic pre-loading and thermocycling. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:682-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01604.x
  2. Hammerle CH, Wagner D, Bragger U, Lussi A, Karayiannis A, Joss A, Lang NP. Threshold of tactile sensitivity perceived with dental endosseous implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060203.x
  3. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:493-502.
  4. Guess PC, Att W, Strub JR. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:633-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00317.x
  5. Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:360-70.
  6. Vanden Bogaerde L, Pedretti G, Dellacasa P, Mozzati M, Rangert B, Wendelhag I. Early function of splinted implants in maxillas and posterior mandibles, using Branemark system tiunite implants: an 18-month prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6:121-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00219.x
  7. Balshi TJ, Hernandez RE, Pryszlak MC, Rangert B. A comparative study of one implant versus two replacing a single molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:372-8.
  8. Grossmann Y, Finger IM, Block MS. Indications for splinting implant restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1642-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.149
  9. Solnit GS, Schneider RL. An alternative to splinting multiple implants: use of the ITI system. J Prosthodont 1998;7:114-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1998.tb00190.x
  10. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:197-212. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.29.s3.12.x
  11. Bragger U, Karoussis I, Persson R, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Lang N. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:326-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01105.x
  12. Krennmair G, Schmidinger S, Waldenberger O. Single-tooth replacement with the Frialit-2 system: a retrospective clinical analysis of 146 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:78-85.
  13. Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:173-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080303.x
  14. Schwarz S, Schroder C, Corcodel N, Hassel AJ, Rammelsberg P. Retrospective comparison of semipermanent and permanent cementation of implant-supported single crowns and FDPs with regard to the incidence of survival and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:e151-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00396.x
  15. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:697-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02209.x
  16. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part II: The prosthetic results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90153-4
  17. Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:949-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90557-Q
  18. Binon PP, McHugh MJ. The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:511-9.
  19. Korsch M, Walther W. Prefabricated versus customized abutments: A retrospective analysis of loosening of cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:522-6. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4307
  20. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago; IL; Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p. 119-37.
  21. Jorgensen KD. The relationship between retention and convergence angle in cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;13:35-40. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016355509028171
  22. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis; MO; Mosby; 1999. p. 549-73.
  23. Misch CE, Bidez MW. Occlusal considerations for implant-supported prostheses: Implant-protective occlusion. In: Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby; 2005. p. 472-510.