Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial compares biological behavior and complications of splinted and nonsplinted prostheses, indicating both are viable options.
Aims: This randomized controlled split-mouth study aimed to compare marginal bone loss (MBL) and peri-implant biological behavior through PICF IL-1β analysis between splinted and nonsplinted implant-supported prostheses restored with the screw and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) system. The study design is a randomized controlled trial involving 20 subjects who are considered eligible based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Materials and Methods: Twenty participants with bilateral posterior edentulism were enrolled. Each received a nonsplinted prosthesis (control group) on one side and a splinted prosthesis (test group) on the contralateral side. Clinical parameters (probing depth, PD; Modified Sulcus Bleeding Index, mSBI), radiographic MBL (marginal bone loss), and PICF IL-1β levels were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. After the study was completed, the data were collected, observed, and subjected to statistical analysis using the latest version of SPSS software. Results: Key findings showed statistically significant but clinically modest differences between groups. At 6 months, nonsplinted implants demonstrated significantly higher PD (3.07 ± 0.23 mm vs. 2.83 ± 0.31 mm, P < 0.001), mSBI (1.25 ± 0.55 vs. 0.95 ± 0.60, P = 0.030), IL-1β levels (92.32 ± 8.48 pg/μL vs. 76.59 ± 7.96 pg/μL, P < 0.001), and MBL (0.99 ± 0.11 mm vs. 0.74 ± 0.08 mm, P < 0.001). Prosthodontic complications were more frequent in the nonsplinted group. Conclusions: Splinted SCRPs demonstrated superior clinical performance in maintaining peri-implant tissue stability and minimizing biomechanical complications over 6 months. However, the clinical significance of these differences appears minimal, indicating that both approaches remain viable when proper occlusal management and maintenance protocols are followed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murugan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: