Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics.
Derksen, W; Joda, T; Chantler, J; Fehmer, V; Gallucci, G O; Gierthmuehlen, P C; Ioannidis, A; Karasan, D; Lanis, A; Pala, K; Pjetursson, B E; Roccuzzo, M; Sailer, I; Strauss, F J; Sun, T C; Wolfart, S; Zitzmann, N U.
Afiliación
  • Derksen W; Private Practice, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
  • Joda T; Section of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Chantler J; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Fehmer V; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Gallucci GO; Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Gierthmuehlen PC; Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Ioannidis A; Department of Prosthodontics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
  • Karasan D; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Lanis A; Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Pala K; Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Pjetursson BE; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Roccuzzo M; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
  • Sailer I; Private Practice, Torino, Italy.
  • Strauss FJ; Division of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
  • Sun TC; Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Wolfart S; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Zitzmann NU; Department of Periodontology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 34 Suppl 26: 104-111, 2023 Sep.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37750528
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Group-2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology¼. Focused research questions were (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Literature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted.

RESULTS:

Additively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw-retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1-year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant-supported multi-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3-year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates.

CONCLUSIONS:

For interim tooth-colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long-term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi-unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Titanio / Implantes Dentales Tipo de estudio: Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Clin Oral Implants Res Asunto de la revista: ODONTOLOGIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Titanio / Implantes Dentales Tipo de estudio: Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Clin Oral Implants Res Asunto de la revista: ODONTOLOGIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos