Clinician preferences for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: A survey of the membership of the Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Current in vivo and in vitro research has difficulty keeping pace with the rapid evolution of materials, protocols, and designs of the complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey was to determine the current prevalence of usage of various treatment modalities and materials for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From November to December of 2018, a survey invitation was sent out to members of the Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics (PCSP). The survey was hosted online, and asked a series of 18 questions related to the materials, protocols, and design preferences for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses. The prompt included the suggestion that answers should be based on preferences for ideal treatment of a hypothetical completely edentulous patient seeking fixed, implant-supported prostheses, assuming sufficient native bone and an opposing complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis. RESULTS: Of 133 invitations sent via email, 45 (34%) surveys were started and 48 (36%) were completed. Pertinent results are summarized in histograms with color coding in each answer group to indicate the total number of arches the person had treated (a proxy for experience). Most respondents were in private practice (73%) and had completed more than 21 arches of fixed implant-supported prostheses (62%). Nearly half (49%) of the respondents preferred 6 implants in the maxilla, while the preferred number in the mandible was highly varied between 4 (33%), 5 (27%), and 6 (29%) implants. Three-fourths (75%) preferred bone-level implant designs, and the plurality was ambivalent on the use of a platform-switched design (48%). Two-thirds (67%) preferred to deliver a complete-arch fixed provisional prosthesis at the time of surgery. Two-thirds (67%) preferred to make the definitive impression by using rigidly splinted, open-tray copings. While most (67%) preferred to fabricate the definitive maxillary and mandibular prostheses with identical occlusal materials, the specifics of material selection between arches varied greatly. In the maxilla, a plurality preferred anatomic contour zirconia with titanium bases (33%). In the mandible, a plurality preferred laboratory-processed resin with denture teeth over a milled metal bar (32%). CONCLUSIONS: While a wide range of protocols, designs, and materials exist in the use of the complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis, these results provide a snapshot of current clinical preferences in the Western United States.

Digital Workflows in the Management of the Esthetically Discriminating Patient.

Traditional methods of designing and creating restorations are being increasingly replaced by digital processes. Software and hardware platforms for esthetic restoration design allow for local computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) production. These systems are becoming ubiquitous and their strengths can be applied to the management of the esthetically discerning patient. This article takes a critical look at the effectiveness of digital workflows, including digital treatment planning using multiple datasets, linked digital workflows, digital restorative design, milled prototypes, and minimally veneered zirconia restorations. A complete digital workflow can be used in the treatment of the esthetically discriminating prosthodontic rehabilitation patient.

Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: To circumvent the difficulty of achieving a passive framework fit, some authors have suggested that multiple adjacent implants be restored individually. This protocol requires that each unit be able to withstand mastication forces. Non-splinted restorations have numerous interproximal contacts that require adjustments prior to placement, with an unknown outcome relative to load transfer. PURPOSE: This in vitro simulation study examined the effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on passivity of fit and the load transfer characteristics of implant restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A photoelastic model of a human partially edentulous left mandible with 3 screw-type implants (3.75 x 10 mm) was fabricated. For non-splinted restorations, individual crowns were fabricated on 3 custom-milled titanium abutments. After the units were cemented, 5 levels of interproximal contact tightness were evaluated: open, ideal (8 microm shim stock drags without tearing), light (ideal +10 microm), medium (ideal + 50 microm), and heavy (ideal + 90 microm). For splinted restorations, five 3-unit fixed partial dentures were fabricated, internally adjusted with silicone disclosing material, and cemented to the model. Changes in stress distribution under simulated non-loaded and loaded conditions (6.8 kg) were analyzed with a polariscope. RESULTS: In the simulated alveolar structures, non-splinted restorations with heavier interproximal contacts were associated with increased tensile stresses between implants; occlusal loads tended to concentrate around the specific loaded implant. Splinted restorations shared the occlusal loads and distributed the stresses more evenly between the implants when force was applied. The load-sharing effect was most evident on the center implant but also was seen on the terminal abutments of the splinted restorations. CONCLUSION: The results of this in vitro study suggest that excessive contact tightness between individual crowns can lead to a non-passive situation. In this experiment, splinted restorations exhibited better load sharing than non-splinted restorations.