Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 9, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Clinical Effects of Angulated Single-Implant Crowns With Different Retention Methods in the Aesthetic Area: A
Xiaying Ding1, Yudi Wang1,2, Manhou Choi1
1Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research, Hangzhou, China.
Objective:
The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of angulated single-implant crowns using the hybrid retention versus pure screw-retained restorations in the aesthetic area.
Materials And Methods:
A retrospective study design was adopted. Patients were included and divided into two groups according to the abutment types they had used: the hybrid retention (AS) and screw-retained retention (ASC). Implant survival rate, mechanical complications, bleeding on probing proportion, probing depth, plaque index, Jemt papillary index, marginal displacement, pink/white esthetic score (PES/WES), emergence angle, marginal bone loss (MBL), and buccal bone thickness (BBT) resorption were evaluated.
Results:
43 patients were included (AS: 22, ASC: 21). The average follow-up was 16.88 months. No cases of implant failure were observed. Mechanical complications were observed in 31.82% of the AS group and 9.52% of the ASC group (p > 0.05). The MBL showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). The BBT resorption was significantly higher in the ASC group than the AS group (p < 0.05). The PES was statistically higher in the AS group than the ASC group (p < 0.01). No other significant difference was observed.
Conclusion:
Both AS and ASC abutments achieved acceptable clinical short-term outcomes for maxillary anterior implant restorations, with 100% observed implant survival rates and no statistically significant differences in survival or peri-implant bone level stability. The AS group exhibited potential advantages in soft-tissue contour and buccal bone thickness preservation. Although the incidence of mechanical complications was higher in the AS group clinically, the difference did not reach statistical significance, warranting further validation.
More Related Videos
10:42A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024