Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant‐supported single crowns : mean follow‐up of 15 years

DSpace Repository

Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant‐supported single crowns : mean follow‐up of 15 years

Details

Files for download
Icon
Overview of item record
Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant‐supported single crowns : mean follow‐up of 15 years
Author Chrcanovic, Bruno ; Kisch, Jenö ; Larsson, Christel
Research Centre Biofilms - Research Center for Biointerfaces
Date 2019
English abstract
Objective: To retrospectively assess the clinical outcomes of implant‐supported single crowns and the supporting implants. Material and Methods: This retrospective study included all patients treated with implant‐supported single crowns at one specialist clinic. Implant and prosthesis failure, and mechanical/technical complications (ceramic fracture/chipping; crown loss of retention/mobility; crown failure/fracture; loosening/loss/fracture of prosthetic screw; implant failure/fracture) were the outcomes analyzed. Any condition/situation that led to the removal/replacement of crowns was considered prosthesis failure. Results: 438 patients with 567 crowns were included. Mean±SD follow‐up of 183.4±69.3 months. 37 implants (6.5%) and 54 crowns (9.5%) failed. If only technical problems were considered, the crown failure rate decreased to 4.1% (23/567). Most common reasons for crown failure: esthetic issue (n=12), crown constantly mobile (n=9), change to another type of prosthesis together with other implants (n=8), crown fracture (n=7), crown in infraposition in comparison to adjacent teeth (n=7). The odds of crown failure were shown to be statistically significantly higher for the following factors: younger patients, maxillary crowns, and screw‐retained crowns. Loose prosthetic screw was much more prevalent in screw‐retained than in cemented crowns. Ceramic fracture/chipping was more prevalent in screw‐retained crowns, maxillae, females. Crown fracture was more prevalent in ceramic crowns, screw‐retained crowns, maxillae, posterior region, females. However, these differences were statistically significant only for crown fractures in females. Conclusions: The odds of crown failure were significant for some factors, but one must keep in mind that non‐technical complications are as common as technical ones as reasons for the replacement of implant‐supported single crowns.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13454 (link to publisher's fulltext.)
Link https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.13... (external link to publication)
Publisher Wiley
Host/Issue Clinical Oral Implants Research;7
Volume 30
ISSN 0905-7161
Language eng (iso)
Subject Dental implant
Fixed prosthesis
Implant-supported single crown
Technical complications
Survival
Medicine
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/28586 Permalink to this page
Link to publication in DiVA Find this research publication in DiVA.
Facebook

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Details

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics