Thick Gingival Margin to Tooth Restoration
Conditions
Keywords
aesthetic outcome, titanium abutment, zirconia abutment
Brief summary
Different studies have proposed the use of zirconia abutments to improve the aesthetic outcomes in the anterior sextant, however the results have been inconclusive. A tendency towards a better aesthetic result with the use of zirconia instead of titanium abutments was observed, although more technical complications were also recorded.The use of zirconia abutments in the anterior maxillary region showed a tendency towards better matching, although differences were not significant. In addition, with these abutments more technical complications were observed, what increased the cost and time. More studies with larger samples and longer observations periods are needed to recommend the use of zirconia abutments for this clinical situation
Detailed description
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of single tooth implant restorations, where different abutment materials were used (zirconia vs titanium) associated with metal-ceramic crowns. The evaluation was carried out by means of an aesthetic composite index combined with patient evaluation
Interventions
DEVICESPI®ART
implant prothetic restoration using a yttrium oxide stabilized zirconia abutment
DEVICESPI®EASY
implant prosthetic restoration using a commercially pure titanium grade 4 abutment
Sponsors
University of Firenze and Siena, Napoli, Italy
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* mono-edentulism condition in the aesthetic zone * minimum of 2 mm of keratinized gingiva
Exclusion criteria
* systemic diseases
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| change from baseline in the anatomic form and surface characteristics of the peri implant mucosa | one month and one year after the placement of the definitive crowns | the following parameters were assessed by means of standardized photographs: contour of the labial surface of the mucosa and its colour; when compared to the adjacent teeth , penalty points were assigned ( 0 = excellent; 1 or 2 = satisfactory; 3 or 4 = moderate; 5 ore more, poor). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| change from baseline in crestal bone levels | one month and one year after placing the definitive crown | in standardized intraoral radiographs the the following measurements were carried out : vertical distance from implant shoulder to the most coronal bone in contact with the implant at mesial and distal site; horizontal distance from the implant shoulder to the adjacent teeth at mesial and distal sites; vertical distance ( parallel to the implant long axis) from the contact point to the bone crest at mesial and distal sides |
| change from baseline in interdental soft tissue position | one month and one year after the placement of the definitive crowns | position of interdental papilla measured by means of Papilla Index ( Jemt, 1997) |
| change from baseline in thickness of the peri implant mucosa | one month and one year after the placement of the definitive crowns | the thickness was measured by placing a calibrated endodontic file 2mm apical to the mucosal margin |
Countries
Italy
Outcome results
None listed