Angulated Screw‐Retained Versus Cemented Crowns Following Type <scp>1C</scp> Treatment in Aesthetic Zone: A 5‐Year Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement provides an effective solution for replacing a single maxillary anterior tooth, offering several distinct advantages. Screw-retained implant crowns are often favored for their biological benefits, particularly their elimination of excess cement, which reduces the risk of peri-implant complications. However, their application is restricted when the screw channel's access hole must be positioned in a visible area, as this would undermine the aesthetic outcome, a common challenge in immediate implant placement scenarios. PURPOSE: To evaluate the 5-year clinical, radiographic, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of angulated screw-retained versus cemented implant crowns following immediate implant placement in the aesthetic region. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included a 5-year follow-up. Eligible patients were divided into two groups according to the type of restoration: angulated screw group (AG) and the cemented group (CG). Implant survival, bleeding on probing (BOP%), probing depth (PD), marginal bone loss (MBL), buccal bone thickness (BBT), mechanical complications, pink esthetic score (PES), and patient's satisfaction assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated at the 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients with 38 implants (AG = 20; CG = 18) attended the 5-year examination. After 5 years of loading, the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups with 2 cases of screw loosening in AG (13%) and 1 case of retention loss in CG (5%). No significant difference in BOP% was found between the 2 groups (mean, 18.33% ± 27.52% vs. 24.07% ± 26.34%, p = 0.331). Furthermore, the comparison of PD (3.28 ± 0.87 vs. 2.81 ± 0.75 mm, p = 0.112), MBL (0.38 ± 0.42 vs. 0.35 ± 0.32 mm, p = 0.633), BBT (1.87 ± 0.55 vs. 1.77 ± 0.61 mm, p = 0.613), PES (9.50 ± 2.30 vs. 9.61 ± 1.98, p = 0.942), and VAS (8.60 ± 0.88 vs. 8.56 ± 0.78, respectively, p = 0.96) revealed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Both treatment options can provide high implant survival, achieve acceptable clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes, and obtain a high level of patient satisfaction, with no significant differences observed after 5-year function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".