4.6 Article

One-piece zirconia oral implants: one-year results from a prospective cohort study. 1. Single tooth replacement

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 590-597

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01876.x

Keywords

clinical investigation; oral implants; prospective; zirconia; zirconium dioxide

Funding

  1. Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden [T-114]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To investigate the clinical and radiographic outcome of a one-piece zirconia oral implant for single tooth replacement after 1 similar to year. Materials and Methods A total of 65 patients received a one-stage implant surgery with immediate temporization. Standardized radiographs were taken at implant insertion and after 1 similar to year to monitor peri-implant bone loss. A univariate analysis of the influence of different baseline parameters on marginal bone loss from implant insertion to 12 similar to months was performed. Soft tissue parameters were evaluated at prosthesis insertion and at the 1-year follow-up. Results After 1 similar to year, three implants were lost, giving a cumulative survival rate of 95.4%. The marginal bone loss after 1 similar to year was 1.31 similar to mm. Thirty-four per cent of the implants lost at least 2 similar to mm bone, and 14% more than 3 similar to mm. The univariate analysis could not depict any parameter influencing marginal bone loss. Probing depth, Clinical Attachment Level, Bleeding and Plaque Index decreased over 1 similar to year. Conclusions The cumulative survival rate of the presented ceramic implant was comparable to the reported survival rate of titanium implants when immediately restored. However, the frequency of increased radiographic bone loss (>2 similar to mm) after 1 similar to year was considerably higher as compared to conventional two-piece titanium implants. The presented zirconia implant can therefore not be recommended for clinical usage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available