Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant‐supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons
Articles > Article · 2017
Authors: Begüm Kıran, Muhittin Toman, Nurcan Gülsüm BUDUNELİ, David F. Lappin, Suna Toksavul, Nejat NİZAM
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, International, WoS, 2017, vol 20, pp 170-179
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12567
Summary
OBJECTIVES: Implant supported single metal-ceramic crowns cemented either extraorally or intraorally were comparatively evaluated by clinical, radiologic, biomarker, and microbiological parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with bilateral single tooth gap in the maxillary posterior region received two locking-taper implants; 4.5 mm width, 8 mm length. Selection of intraoral (IOC) or extraoral cementation (EOC) using screwless titanium abutments was done randomly. Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF), gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected from the implants, adjacent teeth, and bleeding on probing, soft tissue thickness, keratinized tissue width were recorded before starting the prosthetic procedures (baseline) and 3, 6 months after implant loading. Crestal bone loss was measured on radiographs taken immediately and 6 months after cementation. Cytokine levels, amounts of bacteria were determined in PICF/GCF samples. Data were tested by appropriate statistical analyses. RESULTS: Clinical findings were similar in the crowns cemented extraorally or intraorally at all times (P < .05). PICF and GCF data were similar. At 3 month, interleukin-17E and osteoprotegerin levels were lower in the intraorally cemented crowns. CONCLUSION: Extraorally and intraorally cemented crowns exhibited similar crestal bone loss after loading. Higher amount of osteoprotegerin at 3 month at the EOC than the IOC sites might bode well for good osseointegration.