Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38256565›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Single Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns Following a Digital and Conventional Workflow: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Florian Beck, Lana Zupancic Cepic, Stefan Lettner, Andreas Moritz, Christian Ulm, Werner Zechner, Andreas Schedle

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Florian BeckDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-1662-2926
Lana Zupancic CepicDivision of Prosthodontics, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2379-7043
Stefan LettnerAustrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, 1200 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6769-202X
Andreas MoritzDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Christian UlmDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Werner ZechnerDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4142-9992
Andreas SchedleCompetence Center Dental Materials, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation with AUVA · AT

Funding

Straumann (Switzerland) n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single posterior screw-retained monolithic implant crowns following a digital and conventional workflow and to report on the survival/complication rate after a mean 4-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty patients with a single posterior tooth missing were rehabilitated with a bone-level implant. After a healing period of ≥3 months, they were subjected to both a digital and conventional workflow to fabricate two screw-retained monolithic implant crowns. The quantitative clinical adjustments to both crowns (intrasubject comparison) and a questionnaire were recorded at try-in. Thereafter, a crown of the digital and conventional workflows was randomly inserted. At the last follow-up, the marginal bone level (MBL), peri-implant health-related parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque, pocket probing depth (PPD)), and functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) were assessed. Furthermore, the implant survival and success rates and technical complications were evaluated.

resultsA total of 27 patients were followed for a mean period of 4.23 ± 1.10 years. There was no significant difference between the digital and conventional workflows regarding clinical adjustments and questionnaire outcomes. More than twice as many participants recommended digital (n = 16) compared to conventional impressions (n = 7) to friends. The implant survival and success rate were 100% and 96.3%, respectively. Furthermore, two de-cementations and one fracture of the ti-base abutment occurred. There were no significant differences in BoP, plaque, and PPD metrics between the two groups. The changes in the MBL between implant crown insertion (baseline) and the last follow-up were 0.07 ± 0.19 mm and 0.34 ± 0.62 mm in the digital and conventional groups, respectively (

conclusionsThe clinical and radiographic outcomes of single screw-retained monolithic implant crowns were similar between both workflows after a mean of 4 years of service. The patients did not clearly prefer an impression technique for their restoration, although they would recommend the digital impression more often to friends. Thus, decision regarding clinical workflows may be based on the patient's and/or clinician's preference.

Indexed as

CAD/CAMdental implantdigital dentistrydigital workflow

Identifiers

PMID38256565
PMCPMC10816133
OpenAlexW4390820279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.