Comparison of Implant Monolithic Zirconia and CAD/CAM Metal-Ceramic Crowns at the Insertion and Post-Insertion Review Visits: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE: To compare 2 laboratory CAD/CAM single implant crown fabrication techniques, monolithic zirconia (MZ) and metal-ceramic (MC), at the insertion and post-insertion review visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients requiring single implant treatment were invited to participate in the study. The MZ crowns were CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns luted onto titanium base abutments (TBAs). The MC crowns were comprised of milled cobalt-chromium abutments veneered with ceramic. Both fabrication techniques involved analogue impressions. At the insertion visit, the duration of crown insertion, duration of clinical adjustments, and presence or absence of peri-implant soft tissue blanching and pain were recorded. The clinical accuracy was assessed according to the quality of proximal and occlusal contacts. At the review visit, the duration of clinical adjustments and clinician and patient satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: Ten patients were excluded prior to implant placement, and 5 after implant placement. Eventually, 60 patients (64 implants) were included (MZ = 33 implants, MC = 31 implants). The 2 crown fabrication techniques exhibited similar clinical times for insertion and adjustments. Soft tissue blanching and pain were similar between the 2 groups. The 2 groups had comparable clinical accuracy. Clinician and patient satisfaction scores were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: At the insertion and review visits, the MZ and MC implant crowns exhibited similar esthetics, and patient and clinician satisfaction. Despite the differences in manufacturing techniques and materials, the 2 crown types had similar clinical accuracy, and required similar insertion and post-insertion adjustments.