EAO Position Paper: Material Selection for Implant-Supported Restorations.

In recent years, numerous new dental materials have been introduced as alternatives to metal-ceramics for restorations on teeth and implants. This position paper presents the current evidence and respective clinical recommendations of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), one of the scientific partners of the International Journal of Prosthodontics, on material selection for single crowns (SCs) and multiple-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Metal-ceramic restorations can be utilized in most clinical indications and are preferred to ceramic restorations in incidences such as long clinical implant crowns; cantilever implant restorations where one implant is supporting two crowns; implant-supported FDPs with extension units extending more than 7 to 8 mm (premolar size); implant-supported FDPs with more than two pontics; and implant-supported FDPs with small connector diameters due to limited intraocclusal space. Veneered or monolithic zirconia-ceramic and veneered or monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs are indicated for most SC cases in both the anterior and posterior areas. Today, implant-supported zirconia-ceramic FDPs that are conventionally veneered cannot be considered the material of first priority due to the pronounced risk for fracture of the framework and catastrophic fracture of the veneering material. Monolithic zirconia FDPs are a promising alternative to veneered implant-supported zirconia-ceramic FDPs. The mechanical stability of the translucent and shaded zirconia differs significantly between the grades of translucency. This must always be considered when clinical indications are recommended. As this specific area of prosthodontics is evolving fast, numerous studies evaluating different material options in implant prosthodontics are currently performed worldwide, and future consensus meetings will refine the present recommendations. The EAO will therefore regularly publish updated position papers on relevant topics.

Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy.

Both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses are well-established methods for replacing missing teeth in partially or fully edentulous patients. Numerous systematic reviews have been performed in recent years to evaluate the survival and complication rates of implant-retained fixed dental prostheses and implant-retained overdentures, displaying high 5-year survival rates ranging from 97.1% for fixed dental prostheses to 95%-100% for implant-retained overdentures. However, the survival rates only represent the prostheses remaining in use for a defined follow-up time, and do not account for the potential prosthetic complications that may have arisen and influence the general success of the implant treatment. The most common technical complications of fixed implant-retained single crowns are crown fracture, fractures of ceramic implant abutments, and esthetic problems. The predominant technical complication at multiple-unit, implant-retained fixed dental prostheses is fracture/chipping of the veneering ceramic. Reported technical complications for implant-retained overdentures are overdenture fracture or chipping of the veneer materials, whereas mechanical complications include implant fracture, attachment failure, and attachment housing or insert complications. To reduce the risk of such failures, a comprehensive pretreatment diagnostic work-up is essential, including defining the prosthetic goal with the aid of a wax-up or set-up and the associated ideal, prosthetically oriented three-dimensional implant position. Furthermore, selection of the ideal type of prosthesis, including the respective implant components and materials, is important for clinical long-term treatment success.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). METHODS: Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all-ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models. RESULTS: Forty-nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3-year survival rate of veneered-reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%-99.6%). The estimated 3-year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%-98.5%) for monolithic-reinforced glass-ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%-98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%-97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%-97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%-87.7%) for resin-matrix-ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant-supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short-term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.

Comparison of the accuracy of optical impression systems in three different clinical situations.

PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in accuracy (trueness and precision) of five different optical impression systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of the following optical impression systems was tested: (1) CEREC Bluecam (BL; Dentsply Sirona), (2) CEREC Omnicam (OM, Dentsply Sirona); (3) PlanScan (PL; Planmeca); (4) True Definition Scanner (TD; 3M ESPE); and (5) Trios 3 (TR; 3Shape). A standard plastic study model represented a patient with a fully dentate maxilla (ANA-4 V CER, frasaco). Three clinical situations were simulated: Patient 1 (P1): fully dentate; Patient 2 (P2): anterior partial edentulism (two missing incisors); and Patient 3 (P3): posterior partial edentulism (P3) (missing premolar and molar). The models were scanned with a reference scanner (IScan D104i, Imetric), and the digitalized models were used as reference for all comparisons. Then, optical impressions were made for the three clinical scenarios (n = 10 per group). RESULTS: In situation P1, the TD group provided the highest trueness (180.2 ± 46.3µm). In situation P2, the highest trueness was found in the TD (97.9 ± 27.6 µm) and TR (105 ± 9.5µm) groups, and in situation P3, TR had the highest trueness (P < .05) with a median RMS value of 76.2 ± 5.6 µm. In terms of precision, TR provided the highest precision (P < .05) in all three clinical situations, with RMS values 76.7 ± 26 µm for P1, 46.8 ± 14.1 µm for P2, and 39.7 ± 9.1 µm for P3. CONCLUSION: Two optical impression systems (TR and TD) were superior to the other tested systems in most of the measurements. However, none of the tested systems was clearly superior with respect to both trueness and precision.

Influence of Different Cements on the Color Outcomes of Titanium-Based Lithium Disilicate All-Ceramic Crowns and Peri-implant Soft Tissue.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of different cements on the color outcomes of CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate implant crowns cemented to titanium-base abutments utilizing spectrophotometric analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical situation with a missing lateral incisor was mimicked using a maxillary plastic model. Titanium-base-supported monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with identical designs were fabricated using a laboratory CAD/CAM system. The crowns were cemented with three provisional cements and with six definitive cements on both nonsandblasted and sandblasted titanium-base abutments for a total of 15 test groups. As a control group, identical crowns were attached with try-in paste on composite die abutments that duplicated the shape of the titanium-base abutments. The colors of the labial surfaces of the crowns and the peri-implant artificial soft tissue were measured with a spectrophotometer and recorded in CIE L*a*b* parameters. Color differences between the test and control groups were calculated as: ΔE = ([ΔL*]2 + [Δa*]2 + [Δb*]2)1/2. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare ΔE values across different groups. RESULTS: The median ΔE values reported for crowns cemented with different definitive cements on titanium-base abutments ranged from 1.4 to 2.9 for the crown surface and from 1.7 to 1.9 on the peri-implant artificial soft tissue; when the titanium-base abutments were sandblasted, the respective median ΔE values ranged from 0.8 to 4.0 and from 1.4 to 2.2. Ceramic crowns cemented with Multilink HO 0 cement presented significantly (P < .01) lower ΔE values than the other cement types for the crown surface independent of sandblasting and for the artificial soft tissue surface when the titanium abutments were sandblasted (P = .011). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, Multilink HO 0 (Ivoclar Vivadent) cement showed the most favorable masking ability and the most favorable color outcome among the evaluated definitive cements. Cements of more opaque shades appeared in general to be more favorable in terms of masking the gray color of the titanium-base abutments.

A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). METHODS: An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS: The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with external connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different connections with no differences between the types of connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two connections, yet, at external connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. CONCLUSION: For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and external connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and external connections for also showed high survival rates.

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with metal-ceramic FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies and retrospective case series on implant-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS: The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles resulting in 19 studies on implant FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported on 932 metal-ceramic and 175 zirconia-ceramic FDPs. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.8%-99.5%) for metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs, and of 93.0% (95% CI: 90.6%-94.8%) for zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs (p < 0.001). Thirteen studies including 781 metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs estimated a 5-year rate of ceramic fractures and chippings to be 11.6% compared with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) complication rate for zirconia implant-supported FDPs of 50%, reported in a small study with 13 zirconia implant-supported FDPs. Significantly (p = 0.001) more, that is, 4.1%, of the zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs were lost due to ceramic fractures compared to only 0.2% of the metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs. Detailed analysis of factors like number of units of the FDPs or location in the jaws was not possible due to heterogeneity of reporting. No studies on monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the present review. Furthermore, no conclusive results were found for the aesthetic outcomes of both FDP-types. CONCLUSION: For implant-supported FDPs, conventionally veneered zirconia should not be considered as material selection of first priority, as pronounced risk for framework fractures and chipping of the zirconia veneering ceramic was observed. Monolithic zirconia may be an interesting alternative, but its clinical medium- to long-term outcomes have not been evaluated yet. Hence, metal ceramics seems to stay the golden standard for implant-supported multiple-unit FDPs.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 10 studies from a previous systematic review [1]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS: Forty studies reporting on 1796 metal-ceramic and 1110 all-ceramic FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%). The estimated survival rate of reinforced glass ceramic FDPs was 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4-94.0%), the survival rate of glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs was 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3-94.2%) and the survival rate of densely sintered zirconia FDPs was 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8-94.0%) in 5 years of function. Even though the survival rate of all-ceramic FDPs was lower than for metal-ceramic FDPs, the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (p=0.05). A significantly higher incidence of caries in abutment teeth was observed for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs. Significantly more framework fractures were reported for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs (8.0%) and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (12.9%) compared to metal-ceramic FDPs (0.6%) and densely sintered zirconia FDPs (1.9%) in 5 years in function. However, the incidence of ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly (p=0.018 and 0.028 respectively) higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to all other types of FDPs. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates of all types of all-ceramic FDPs were lower than those reported for metal-ceramic FDPs. The incidence of framework fractures was significantly higher for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs and infiltrated glass ceramic FDPs, and the incidence for ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.

Restoration margins in young adolescents: a clinical and radiographic study of Swiss Army recruits.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to report the radiographical prevalence of overhanging fillings in a group of Swiss Army recruits in 2006 and to relate the dimensions of the overhangs to clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 626 Swiss Army recruits were examined for their periodontal conditions, prevalence of caries, and stomatological and functional aspects of the masticatory system and halitosis. In particular, the present report deals with the presence or the absence of fillings, the presence or the absence of overhangs and their relation to clinical and radiographic parameters. RESULTS: A total of 16,198 interdental sites were evaluated on bitewing radiographs. Of these sites, 15,516 (95.8%) were sound and 682 (4.2%) were filled. Amalgam restorations were found in 94.1% and resin composite fillings in 5.9% of the sites. Of these 682 sites, 96 (14.1%) yielded overhanging margins of various sizes. This low prevalence of fillings represents not only a substantial reduction when compared with a similar Swiss Army study (Lang et al, 1988), but also an improvement in the quality of dental care delivery to young Swiss males. Plaque Index and Gingival Index increased statistically significantly with the presence of fillings, when compared with healthy non-filled sites. Clinical parameters that were significantly associated with the presence of overhangs included clinical attachment loss. Moreover, between 1985 and 2006 the prevalence of fillings was significantly reduced from 20.0% to 4.2% of all surfaces. Furthermore, the marginal fit of the fillings improved from 33.0% with overhangs to 14.1%. CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement was observed in the periodontal and dental conditions of young Swiss males that was shown to have taken place within the previous two decades. From 1985 to 2006, the prevalence of fillings was reduced fourfold and that of overhanging margins twofold, documenting an improvement in the quality of restorative dentistry.