4.4 Article

One-Piece Zirconia Oral Implants for Single Tooth Replacement: Five-Year Results from a Prospective Cohort Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL BIOMATERIALS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jfb14020116

关键词

clinical investigation; oral implants; prospective; zirconia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This 5-year prospective cohort investigation evaluated the outcomes of a one-piece zirconia implant system for single tooth replacement. Follow-ups showed a cumulative implant survival rate of 78.2% after 5 years. Patient satisfaction was higher compared to pre-treatment measurements.
The intention of this 5-year prospective cohort investigation was to clinically and radiographically investigate the outcomes of a one-piece zirconia implant system for single tooth replacement. Sixty-five patients received a total of 66 single-tooth implants. All implants immediately received temporary restorations and were finally restored with all-ceramic crowns. Follow-ups were performed at the prosthetic delivery, after 1, 3, and 5 years. Peri-implant and dental soft-tissue parameters were evaluated and patient-reported outcomes recorded. To monitor peri-implant bone remodelling, standardised radiographs were taken at the implant insertion and at the 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-ups. In the course of 5 years, 14 implants were lost, resulting in a cumulative implant survival rate of 78.2%. The mean marginal bone loss from the implant insertion to the 5-year follow-up amounted to 1.12 mm. Probing depth, clinical attachment level, bleeding, and plaque index increased over time. In 91.5% of the implants, the papilla index showed levels of 1 or 2, respectively. At the end of the study, the patient satisfaction was higher compared to the pre-treatment measurements. Due to the low survival rate after five years and the noticeably high frequency of advanced bone loss observed in this study, the implant has not met the launch criteria, as it would have not been recommended for routine clinical use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据