All-ceramic versus titanium-based implant supported restorations: Preliminary 12-months results from a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE. The aim of the present randomized controlled study was to compare prefabricated all-ceramic, anatomically shaped healing abutments followed by all-ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns and prefabricated standard-shaped (round-diameter) titanium healing abutments followed by final titanium abutments restored with porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) implant crowns in the premolar and molar regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty-two patients received single implants restored either by all-ceramic restorations (test group, healing abutment, final abutment, and crown all made of zirconia) or conventional titanium-based restorations. Immediately after prosthetic incorporation and after 12 months of loading, implant survival, technical complications, bone loss, sulcus fluid flow rate (SFFR) as well as plaque index (PI) and implant stability (Periotest) were analyzed clinically and radiologically. RESULTS. After 12 months of loading, an implant and prosthetic survival rate of 100% was observed. Minor prosthetic complications such as chipping of ceramic veneering occurred in both groups. No statistical significant differences were observed between both groups with only a minimum of bone loss, SFFR, and PI. CONCLUSION. All-ceramic implant prostheses including a prefabricated anatomically shaped healing abutment achieved comparable results to titanium-based restorations in the posterior region. However, observational results indicate a benefit as shaping the peri-implant soft-tissue with successive provisional devices and subsequent compression of the soft tissue can be avoided.