Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39460507›Full record

Trial reportJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025

Monolithic Hybrid Abutment Crowns (Screw-Retained) Versus Monolithic Hybrid Abutments With Monolithic Crowns (Adhesively Cemented): Three-Year Data of a Prospective Clinical Split-Mouth Study.

Michael Naumann, Arndt Happe, Agnes Holtkamp, Sarah M Blender

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Michael NaumannDepartment of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Arndt HappeCenter of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4855-7812
Agnes HoltkampDepartment of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sarah M BlenderCenter of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7429-8698

Funding

Ivoclar VivadentOral Reconstruction Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study compares the restoration of single-tooth implants with screw-retained lithium-disilicate hybrid-abutment crowns and single-tooth lithium-disilicate crowns adhesively bonded to hybrid abutments with regard to objective clinical and subjective patient-specific evaluation criteria over a time of observation of 3 years. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo bone-level implants were placed in contralateral sides of the same jaw in 10 patients, each with two single-tooth gaps. After osseointegration, implants were uncovered and an impression was taken. In accordance with the split-mouth design, one implant in each patient was restored with a screw-retained hybrid abutment crown and the other implant with a hybrid abutment and an adhesively bonded single-tooth crown. The restorations were randomly allocated to the implants. Prefabricated titanium bases were used. The ceramic abutments and restorations were fabricated monolithically with pressed lithium-disilicate ceramic. An objective evaluation (survival, technical, or biological complications, FIPS) by the practitioner and a subjective evaluation (satisfaction, OHIP) by the patient were carried out after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after restoration placement.

resultsBoth restoration types showed a survival rate of 100% after 3 years of observation. No technical or biological complications occurred. No significant difference was observed between the two types of restoration neither for objective (survival, technical or biological complications, FIPS) nor subjective (satisfaction, OHIP) evaluation criteria (p > 0.05).

conclusionNo statistically significant differences were observed between screw-retained and cemented pressed lithium-disilicate restorations on bone-level implants for both objective and subjective evaluation criteria, respectively. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Monolithic hybrid-abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutments with single-tooth crowns (cemented) made of pressed lithium disilicate can be used to successfully restore single implants.

Indexed as

CrownsDental AbutmentsDental Implant-Abutment DesignDental Implants, Single-ToothAdultDental CementsDental PorcelainDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesDental CementsDental Porcelainlithia disilicatecementedhybrid abutmenthybrid‐abutment crownmonolithic lithium disilicatescrew retainedsplit‐mouth designtitanium base

Identifiers

PMID39460507
PMCPMC11913212

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.