Clinical, radiographic, and immunological evaluation of angulated screw‐retained and cemented single‐implant crowns in the esthetic region: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical trial

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Screw‐retained implant crowns are considered more biologically compatible than cemented crowns due to the absence of excess cement. However, traditional screw‐retained implant crowns are not viable when the access hole of the screw channel would need to be located in an esthetic area, which would compromise the esthetic outcome of the treatment.
To evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and immunological outcomes of angulated screw‐retained and cemented single‐implant crowns in the esthetic region.
The study was a single‐center, open‐label, randomized controlled clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomly placed in two groups: angulated screw‐retained group (AG) and cemented group (CG). Implant survival rate, bleeding on probing rate (BOP%), probing depth (PD), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), concentrations of pro‐inflammatory cytokines (TNF‐α, IL‐6) in peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF), mechanical complications, and pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) were evaluated.
Fifty‐six patients (AG: 29, CG: 27) attended the 1‐year examination. The drop‐out rate was 6.67%. No implant failure was found in both groups during the observation period. BOP% was significantly lower in the AG than that in the CG (mean, 21.84% ± 19.97% vs. 37.04% ± 26.28%, p = 0.018). The concentration of TNF‐α in PICF was significantly higher in the AG than that in the CG (median, 13.54 vs. 4.62, p = 0.019). No significant difference of PD, mPI, MBL, IL‐6, or mechanical complication rates was found between the two groups. Mean scores for PES/WES were 21.71 and 21.64 in the AG and CG, respectively.
Based on the present results, both treatment options showed acceptable clinical outcomes in the short term. Angulated screw‐retained crowns might benefit the peri‐implant soft tissue. However, studies with long‐term follow‐up are needed to confirm whether the higher concentration of TNF‐α will compromise the long‐term outcomes of treatment.