Comparative evaluation of biological, mechanical, and patient-reported outcomes of angulated screw channel abutments versus multi-unit abutment-retained single-unit implant restorations in the anterior esthetic zone: An-in vivo study

1Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aims: The study aimed to evaluate biological, mechanical, and patient reported parameters associated with ASC abutments and MU abutments for the fabrication of screw retained implant crowns in the anterior esthetic zone. Setting and Design: For the study, 20 patients were selected and implants were placed within the constraints of prosthetic envelope. Later, the screw retained crown was fabricated. Materials and Methods: Biological parameters (including implant survival rate, marginal bone levels using cone beam computed tomography, and soft tissue assessment using periodontal indices) were measured at the time of crown placement and 1 year follow up. Mechanical parameter (screw loosening) was calculated using removal torque loss (RTL) values obtained at the time of crown placement and 1 year follow up. Patient reported parameters were evaluated using a questionnaire at 1 year follow up. Statistical Analysis Used: All data were tabulated, statistically analyzed, and compared using SPSS version 23 IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA. Results: Implant survival was found 100% in both the groups. The marginal bone level reduced considerably in both the groups from baseline to 1 year follow up. The MU abutment group had slightly less marginal bone loss than the ASC abutment group. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups' periodontal indices at baseline and 1-year follow-up values. At baseline, the RTL value was substantially lower (P <0.003) in the ASC abutment group than in the MU abutment group, however at the 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in RTL or screw loosening between the two groups. Patient-reported data showed no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Within the constraints of this study, it was suggested that both ASC and MU abutments provide equally promising results in terms of biological, mechanical, and patient-reported parameters in the anterior esthetic region for single screw-retained crowns.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Varshney, N., Kusum, C. K., Trivedi, A., Kaushik, M., Dubey, P., & Bali, Y. (2023). Comparative evaluation of biological, mechanical, and patient-reported outcomes of angulated screw channel abutments versus multi-unit abutment-retained single-unit implant restorations in the anterior esthetic zone: An-in vivo study. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 23(3), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_101_23

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free