MedPath

Aesthetic Outcomes of Single Tooth Implant Using Metal Ceramic Restorations With Either Zirconia or Titanium Abutments

Phase 2
Completed
Conditions
Thick Gingival Margin to Tooth Restoration
Interventions
Device: SPI®ART
Device: SPI®EASY
Registration Number
NCT02315794
Lead Sponsor
University of Firenze and Siena, Napoli, Italy
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

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
24
Inclusion Criteria
  • mono-edentulism condition in the aesthetic zone
  • minimum of 2 mm of keratinized gingiva
Exclusion Criteria
  • systemic diseases

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
SPI®ARTSPI®ARTin test group after a three month healing period a zirconia abutment was connected to the implant to realize the prosthetic restoration
SPI®EASYSPI®EASYin control group a three month healing period a titanium abutment was connected to the implant for the prosthetic restoration
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
change from baseline in the anatomic form and surface characteristics of the peri implant mucosaone 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 Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
change from baseline in interdental soft tissue positionone 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 mucosaone 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

change from baseline in crestal bone levelsone 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

Trial Locations

Locations (2)

Siena University, Department of Periodontology, Policlinico Le Scotte Siena.

🇮🇹

Siena, Italy

Tuscan School of Dentistry

🇮🇹

Siena, Italy

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath