Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single posterior screw-retained monolithic implant crowns following a digital and conventional workflow and to report on the survival/complication rate after a mean 4-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with a single posterior tooth missing were rehabilitated with a bone-level implant. After a healing period of ≥3 months, they were subjected to both a digital and conventional workflow to fabricate two screw-retained monolithic implant crowns. The quantitative clinical adjustments to both crowns (intrasubject comparison) and a questionnaire were recorded at try-in. Thereafter, a crown of the digital and conventional workflows was randomly inserted. At the last follow-up, the marginal bone level (MBL), peri-implant health-related parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque, pocket probing depth (PPD)), and functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) were assessed. Furthermore, the implant survival and success rates and technical complications were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were followed for a mean period of 4.23 ± 1.10 years. There was no significant difference between the digital and conventional workflows regarding clinical adjustments and questionnaire outcomes. More than twice as many participants recommended digital (n = 16) compared to conventional impressions (n = 7) to friends. The implant survival and success rate were 100% and 96.3%, respectively. Furthermore, two de-cementations and one fracture of the ti-base abutment occurred. There were no significant differences in BoP, plaque, and PPD metrics between the two groups. The changes in the MBL between implant crown insertion (baseline) and the last follow-up were 0.07 ± 0.19 mm and 0.34 ± 0.62 mm in the digital and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.195). The mean overall FIPS score was 8.11 ± 1.37 (range: 5-10). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of single screw-retained monolithic implant crowns were similar between both workflows after a mean of 4 years of service. The patients did not clearly prefer an impression technique for their restoration, although they would recommend the digital impression more often to friends. Thus, decision regarding clinical workflows may be based on the patient's and/or clinician's preference.