Premium
Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant‐supported single crowns: Mean follow‐up of 15 years
Author(s) -
Chrcanovic Bruno Ramos,
Kisch Jenö,
Larsson Christel
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13454
Subject(s) - crown (dentistry) , dentistry , medicine , implant , prosthesis , maxilla , implant failure , retrospective cohort study , orthodontics , surgery
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; and implant failure/fracture) were the outcomes analyzed. Any condition/situation that led to the removal/replacement of crowns was considered prosthesis failure. Results A total of 438 patients with 567 crowns were included. Mean ± SD follow‐up of 183.4 ± 69.3 months. A total of 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), and crown in infraposition in comparison with 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.