Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions

OBJECTIVES: To test the survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of customized zirconia and titanium abutments 5 years after crown insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with 40 single implants in maxillary and mandibular canine and posterior regions were included. The implant sites were randomly assigned to zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns or titanium abutments supporting metal-ceramic crowns. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline, and at 6, 12, 36 and 60 months of follow-up. The abutments and reconstructions were examined for technical and/or biological complications. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on Probing (BOP) were assessed at abutments (test) and analogous contralateral teeth (control). Radiographs of the implants revealed the bone level (BL) on mesial (mBL) and distal sides (dBL). Data were statistically analyzed with nonparametric mixed models provided by Brunner and Langer and STATA (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 18 zirconia and 10 titanium abutments were available at a mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range 4.5-6.3 years). No abutment fracture or loss of a reconstruction occurred. Hence, the survival rate was 100% for both. Survival of implants supporting zirconia abutments was 88.9% and 90% for implants supporting titanium abutments. Chipping of the veneering ceramic occurred at three metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments. No significant differences were found at the zirconia and titanium abutments for PPD (meanPPD(ZrO2) 3.3 ± 0.6 mm, mPPD(T) (i) 3.6 ± 1.1 mm), PCR (mPCR(Z) (rO) (2) 0.1 ± 0.3, mPCR(T) (i) 0.3 ± 0.2) and BOP (mBOP(Z) (rO) (2) 0.5 ± 0.3, mBOP(T) (i) 0.6 ± 0.3). Moreover, the BL was similar at implants supporting zirconia and titanium abutments (mBL(Z) (rO) (2) 1.8 ± 0.5, dBL(Z) (rO) (2) 2.0 ± 0.8; mBL(T) (i) 2.0 ± 0.8, dBL(T) (i) 1.9 ± 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically or clinically relevant differences between the 5-year survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of zirconia and titanium abutments in posterior regions.

Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review

The objectives of the review were (1) to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level impressions in cases with internal and external connection abutments/reconstructions, and (2) to evaluate the incidence of technical complications of internal and external connection metal- or zirconia-based abutments and single-implant reconstructions.

Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates

To assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications of cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions.

Prostate specific antigen expression does not necessarily correlate with prostate cancer cell growth

PURPOSE: The antiproliferative effects of pharmacological agents used for androgen ablative therapy in prostate cancer, including goserelin, bicalutamide and cyproterone acetate (Fluka Chemie, Buchs, Switzerland), were tested in vitro. It was determined whether they affected prostate specific antigen mRNA and protein expression independent of growth inhibition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Goserelin, bicalutamide (AstraZeneca, Zug, Switzerland) and cyproterone acetate were added to prostate specific antigen expressing, androgen dependent LNCaP and androgen independent C4-2 cell line (Urocor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) cultures. Proliferation was determined by the 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazoliumbromide assay (Roche, Mannheim, Germany). Prostate specific antigen mRNA expression was assessed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Secreted prostate specific antigen protein levels were quantified by microparticle enzyme-immunoassay. RESULTS: Goserelin inhibited cell growth and prostate specific antigen protein secretion in LNCaP and C4-2 cells. Prostate specific antigen mRNA expression was not decreased. Bicalutamide did not affect cell growth or prostate specific antigen mRNA expression in LNCaP or C4-2 cells, although it significantly decreased prostate specific antigen protein secretion in LNCaP and to a lesser extent in C4-2 cells. Cyproterone acetate decreased the growth of C4-2 but not of LNCaP cells. It did not affect prostate specific antigen mRNA or protein expression in either cell line. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate specific antigen expression does not necessarily correlate with cell growth. Without a substantial effect on cell growth bicalutamide lowers prostate specific antigen synthesis, whereas cyproterone acetate decreases cell growth with no effect on prostate specific antigen secretion. Prostate specific antigen expression may be influenced by growth inhibition but also by altered mRNA and protein levels depending on the agent, its concentration and the cell line evaluated. For interpreting clinical trials prostate specific antigen is not necessarily a surrogate end point marker for a treatment effect on prostate cancer cell growth.