Full‐Zirconia Single Molar Implant‐Supported Restorations With Angulated Screw Channel Abutments: 5‐Year Results of a Prospective Case Series Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Full‐zirconia (ZrO2) restorations were introduced to address the most common complications in implant‐supported restorations in the posterior region: fractures of the veneering. The aim of this prospective case series study was to evaluate full‐ZrO2 implant‐supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments (ASCs) in the molar region of the maxilla and mandible and their effect on hard and soft peri‐implant tissues, and patient‐related outcome measures (PROMs), during a 5‐year follow‐up period. Material and Methods Patients with a single missing molar in the maxilla or mandible with sufficient bone volume and an implant site free of infection were included. Thirty consecutive patients received a parallel‐walled implant with conical connection. After 3 months, a full contour screw‐retained ZrO2 restoration with an ASC was fabricated and connected to the implant. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed 1 month, 12 months, and 5 years after placement of the restoration. Implant success probability was calculated using Kaplan–Meier statistics, and confidence intervals were given over the results at 5 years. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were scored prior to treatment and at follow‐up intervals. The primary outcome measure was the success of the restoration. Results All patients could be evaluated after 5 years. Success probability at 5 years was 73.0% (95% CI [57.0%; 89.0%]). Implant survival was 100% and restoration survival was 97%. The encountered technical complications were easily repairable (n = 12). From loading to the 5‐years follow‐up, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.30 mm (SD 0.52 mm). Mean scores for plaque, calculus, peri‐implant mucosa, bleeding, and pocket probing depth were low, depicting healthy peri‐implant conditions. PROMs had significantly improved, and the mean overall score was 9.1 ± 0.7 (scale 1–10). Conclusion Full‐ZrO2 implant‐supported restorations with ASC abutments employed in this study, when applied in maxillary and mandibular posterior regions, show a 97% survival rate. However, a high incidence rate of technical complications (n = 12) was noted during the 5‐year observation period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".