Thick Gingival Margin to Tooth Restoration Clinical Trial
Official title:
Aesthetic Outcomes of Single Tooth Implant-supported Restorations Using Metal Ceramic Restorations With Either Zirconia or Titanium Abutments: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study
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
| Status | Completed |
| Enrollment | 24 |
| Est. completion date | February 2011 |
| Est. primary completion date | January 2010 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
| Gender | Both |
| Age group | 18 Years and older |
| Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - mono-edentulism condition in the aesthetic zone - minimum of 2 mm of keratinized gingiva Exclusion Criteria: - systemic diseases |
Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Treatment
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italy | Siena University, Department of Periodontology, Policlinico Le Scotte Siena. | Siena | |
| Italy | Tuscan School of Dentistry | Siena |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| University of Firenze and Siena, Napoli, Italy |
Italy,
Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM. A new index for rating aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues--the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Dec;16(6):645-9. — View Citation
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | change from baseline in the anatomic form and surface characteristics of the peri implant mucosa | 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). | one month and one year after the placement of the definitive crowns | No |
| Secondary | change from baseline in crestal bone levels | 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 | one month and one year after placing the definitive crown | No |
| Secondary | change from baseline in interdental soft tissue position | position of interdental papilla measured by means of Papilla Index ( Jemt, 1997) | one month and one year after the placement of the definitive crowns | No |
| Secondary | change from baseline in thickness of the peri implant mucosa | the thickness was measured by placing a calibrated endodontic file 2mm apical to the mucosal margin | one month and one year after the placement of the definitive crowns | No |