• P-ISSN 2277-3525 E-ISSN 2582-7901

Journal of Multidisciplinary
Dental Research

Article

Journal of Multidisciplinary Dental Research

DOI: 10.38138/JMDR/v7i2.2021.2

Volume: 7, Issue: 2, Pages: 65-69

Original Article

Esthetic Evaluation of Single Tooth Implants Restored With Cemented and Screw Retained Crowns: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

Sharika Gopinath ​✉ 1, Rithesh Kulal 2, S Savita 3, N S Mamatha 4

1 Post Graduate, Department of Periodontology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
2 Professor, Department of Periodontology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
3 HOD, Department of Periodontology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
4 HOD, Department of oral implantology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Corresponding author  ✉ : [email protected]

Received Date:22 July 2021, Accepted Date:05 February 2022, Published Date:08 February 2022

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Implant-supported restorations are often attached as screw-retained or cemented prostheses, consistent with the sort of retention. Dental implants are commonly used not just to supply patients with function but also form and esthetics. The aim of this study is to guage and compare the steadiness of peri-implant soft tissues around single implants restored with screw retained and cemented prosthesis and also to compare PES and WES for screw retained and cemented prosthesis. A total of 20 patients, both male and female with single unit implants will be selected and randomly grouped into group A and group B. Group A - 10 patients with screw retained prosthesis, Group B - 10 patients with cemented prosthesis. Evaluation of peri- implant soft tissues were analysed with photographs using PES and WES. Inferential statistics like Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman’s correlation was used. A p - value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. PES and WES in both CP and SP groups was not statistically significant, giving an almost perfect outcome (p ≤ 0.05). Spearman’s correlation test failed to show any significant associations between the overall mean PES or WES in both CP and SP groups (p=0.65). The study demonstrated that both the restorations showed no difference and achieved favourable esthetic outcome.

Keywords: Esthetic, Cemented, Screw retained, PES, WES, peri-implant

References

  2. Jemt T. Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1997;17(4):326–359.
  3. Chang M, Wennström JL, Andersson B. Esthetic outcome of implant supported single-tooth replacements assessed by the patient and by prosthodontists. Int J Prosthodont. 1999;12(4):326–359.
  5. Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2005;16(6):639–644. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x
  7. Beekmans D, Beekmans B, Cune M. Pink and White Esthetics of a New Zirconia Implant: A 6-Month to 8-Year Follow-Up. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. 2017;37(4):511–518. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.11607/prd.2705
  8. Boardman N, Darby I, Chen S. A retrospective evaluation of aesthetic outcomes for single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2016;27(4):443–451. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12593
  9. Huynh-Ba G, Meister DJ, Hoders AB, Mealey BL, Mills MP, Oates TW, et al. Esthetic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes of immediately placed implants (Type 1) and early placed implants (Type 2): preliminary 3-month results of an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2016;27(2):241–252. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12577
  11. Gjelvold B, Kisch J, Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Clinical and radiographic outcome following immediate loading and delayed loading of single-tooth implants: Randomized clinical trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2017;19(3):549–558. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12479
  12. Quirynen M, Bollen CML, Eyssen H, Steenberghe DV. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Brånemark system®. An in vitro study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1994;5(4):239–244. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050407.x
  14. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1992;68(5):737–741. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90194-f

COPYRIGHT

© 2021 Published by International Dental Educationists’ Association (IDEA). This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

  • 15 March 2022
  • VIEWS 1648
  • PDF 277
Article Metrics


More articles

DON'T MISS OUT!

Subscribe now for latest articles, news.