Systematic review evaluating the influence of the prosthetic material and prosthetic design on the clinical outcomes of implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior area.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to assess the survival, failure, and technical complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (iFDPs) with pontic or splinted crown (iSp C) designs in the posterior area and compare the influence of prosthetic materials and prosthetic design on the outcomes. METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized-, prospective-, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of ≥12 months, evaluating the clinical outcomes of posterior iFDPs with pontic or iSp Cs. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies reporting on 42 study arms were included in the present systematic review. The meta-analysis of the included studies indicated estimated 3-year survival rates of 98.3% (95%CI: 95.6-99.3%) for porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) iFDPs, 97.5% (95%CI: 95.5-98.7%) for veneered zirconia (Zr) iFDPs with pontic, 98.9% (95%CI: 96.8-99.6%) for monolithic or micro-veneered zirconia iFDPs with pontic, and 97.0% (95%CI: 84.8-99.9%) for lithium disilicate iFDPs with pontics. The survival rates for different material combination showed no statistically significant differences. Veneered restorations, overall, showed significantly (p < .01) higher ceramic fracture and chipping rates compared with monolithic restorations. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in survival rates (98.3% [95%CI: 95.6-99.3%] vs. 99.1% [95%CI: 97.6-99.7%]) and overall complication rates between PFM iFDPs with pontic and PFM iSp Cs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data identified by this systematic review, PFM, veneered Zr, and monolithic Zr iFDPs with pontic and iSp Cs showed similarly high short-term survival rates in the posterior area. Veneered restorations exhibit ceramic chipping more often than monolithic restorations, with the highest fracture rate reported for veneered Zr iFDPs.

Treatment alternatives for the rehabilitation of the posterior edentulous maxilla.

Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can represent a significant clinical challenge due to limited bone availability and surgical access, among other factors. This review addresses several treatment options to replace missing teeth in posterior maxillary segments, namely the placement of standard implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation, short implants, tilted implants, and distal cantilever extensions. Pertinent technical information and a concise summary of relevant evidence on the reported outcomes of these different therapeutic approaches are presented, along with a set of clinical guidelines to facilitate decision-making processes and optimize the outcomes of therapy.

Rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with fixed or removable dentures retained by root-form dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical research in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with implant-supported fixed or removable prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol-oriented search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO registration CRD42021265179) from 1 January 2011 to 27 July 2021 to identify longitudinal studies reporting on the rehabilitation of edentulous patients with implant-supported prostheses. The primary aim of this study was the collection of all objectively reported outcomes in each study. Secondary aims included the description of the methods of assessment and analytical methods. Risk of bias was applied according to the study design (randomized controlled trial, cohort study, or descriptive pre-post study). Individual study data were extracted into an outcomes matrix. Outcomes were grouped into domains and descriptively analysed. A network diagram was generated to establish relationships between domains. The present review follows the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: The screening and selection processes resulted in the identification of 491 publications, corresponding to 421 different studies (cohorts of patients). Only 24% of the studies reported the use of EQUATOR network guidelines. Implant failure/survival was the most reported outcome (270 studies), but the criterion to determine implant failure and/or survival was frequently not described or was ambiguous. Implant success was much less frequently reported (88) and was based on several heterogenous composite definitions. Marginal bone levels (233 studies), technical complications (158), and clinical outcomes (150), including peri-implant soft tissue and implant stability assessment, were also frequently reported. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (145) and function-based outcomes (40) were predominantly reported in isolation from other outcomes and most frequently in removable restorations. While quality of life was evaluated using valid instruments, patient satisfaction was evaluated based on a common sense concept of satisfaction. Economic outcomes were under-reported (13). CONCLUSIONS: There is great heterogeneity in the criteria to define implant failure or survival and implant success, which prevents the comparison of rates across studies. Even though studies frequently report multiple outcomes, PROMs are usually reported in isolation from other outcomes. It would be valuable to have a set of core outcome variables and standardized methods of measurement for future studies.

Scientific rationale for study: Consistent data on the outcomes of treatments for full-arch edentulism are fundamental for establishing high-quality clinical practices with effective impact on patients' lives. Principal findings: Despite the increasing number of studies assessing the rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with implant-supported prostheses, there has been little adherence to reporting guidelines (EQUATOR network), resulting in high variability regarding the type of outcomes reported. The clinical performance of these restorations has been mostly evaluated using clinician-oriented and patient-reported outcomes. Assessment methods are frequently not described and vary across studies. Practical implications: It would be valuable to have a set of core outcome variables and standardized methods of measurement for future studies.

Rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with fixed or removable dentures retained by root-form dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical research in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the rehabilitation of full-arch edentulism with implant-supported fixed or removable prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol-oriented search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO registration CRD42021265179) from 1 January 2011 to 27 July 2021 to identify longitudinal studies reporting on the rehabilitation of edentulous patients with implant-supported prostheses. The primary aim of this study was the collection of all objectively reported outcomes in each study. Secondary aims included the description of the methods of assessment and analytical methods. Risk of bias was applied according to the study design (randomized controlled trial, cohort study, or descriptive pre-post study). Individual study data were extracted into an outcomes matrix. Outcomes were grouped into domains and descriptively analysed. A network diagram was generated to establish relationships between domains. The present review follows the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: The screening and selection processes resulted in the identification of 491 publications, corresponding to 421 different studies (cohorts of patients). Only 24% of the studies reported the use of EQUATOR network guidelines. Implant failure/survival was the most reported outcome (270 studies), but the criterion to determine implant failure and/or survival was frequently not described or was ambiguous. Implant success was much less frequently reported (88) and was based on several heterogenous composite definitions. Marginal bone levels (233 studies), technical complications (158), and clinical outcomes (150), including peri-implant soft tissue and implant stability assessment, were also frequently reported. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (145) and function-based outcomes (40) were predominantly reported in isolation from other outcomes and most frequently in removable restorations. While quality of life was evaluated using valid instruments, patient satisfaction was evaluated based on a common sense concept of satisfaction. Economic outcomes were under-reported (13). CONCLUSIONS: There is great heterogeneity in the criteria to define implant failure or survival and implant success, which prevents the comparison of rates across studies. Even though studies frequently report multiple outcomes, PROMs are usually reported in isolation from other outcomes. It would be valuable to have a set of core outcome variables and standardized methods of measurement for future studies.

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.

Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To report assessments of four systematic reviews (SRs) on (i) clinical outcomes of all-ceramic implant-supported crowns (iSCs), (ii) production time, effectiveness, and costs of computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM), (iii) computer-assisted implant planning and surgery (CAIPS) time and costs, and (iv) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An author group consisting of experienced clinicians and content experts discussed and evaluated the SRs and formulated consensus on the main findings, statements, clinical recommendations, and need for future research. RESULTS: All four SRs were conducted and reported according to PRISMA and detailed comprehensive search strategies in at least three bibliometric databases and hand searching. The search strategies were deemed reproducible. Variation was noted regarding language restrictions and inclusion of grey literature, but the search comprehensiveness appeared persuasive. The SRs included bias risk assessments of the primary studies, and their study methodology impacted the interpretations of the extracted data. CONCLUSIONS: (i) There is limited evidence (49 NRCT) showing that veneered and monolithic all-ceramic iSCs have excellent outcomes observed up to 3 years. (ii) There is no evidence evaluating production time and effectiveness comparing subtractive and additive CAM of implant models, abutments and crowns. (iii) There is limited evidence (4 RCT) that CAIPS involves more time and costs when considering the entire workflow and for diagnostics, manufacturing, and insertion of the restoration. Time seems to be the decisive factor for higher costs. (iv) Patients' comfort increases when optical compared to conventional impressions are used for fabricating iSCs and short-span FPDs (2 RCT, 5 NRCT).

Esthetic Outcomes of Implant-Supported Single Crowns Related to Abutment Type and Material: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the influence of abutment material and configuration on the soft tissue esthetic outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (iSCs) after 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search on MEDLINE (PubMed) from January 2000 to July 2019 was conducted for clinical trials with no language restrictions. The focus question was: In partially edentulous patients with iSCs, does the abutment material (metal vs ceramic) or the configuration (standardized vs customized) have an effect on the soft tissue esthetic outcomes? Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and prospective or retrospective case series with at least 10 patients and a minimum of 3 years of follow-up were included. The esthetic outcomes Pink Esthetic Score (PES), PES/White Esthetic Score (WES; ie, modPES), Papilla Index (PI), soft tissue recession, and papilla height change were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed when applicable. RESULTS: Of the 6,399 titles identified, 27 studies were included. Combined mean PES/modPES scores, translated into a scale of 0 to 100, were 68.8 for ceramic, 74.2 for metal (P = .392), 71.9 for customized, and 71.3 for standard (P = .981) abutments. Mean soft tissue recession was also similar between the abutment groups, abutment material (P = .850), and configuration (P = .849), ranging from -1.09 mm to +0.59 mm gain. Papilla height changes ranged from -1.22 mm to +1.0 mm gain. The reported mean PI was 2.16 for customized, 2.06 for standard (P = .552), 2.01 for ceramic, and 2.28 for metallic (P = .04) abutments. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that the abutment material and configuration had minimal impact on the evaluated soft tissue esthetic outcomes. Future research focusing on the included parameters in a randomized controlled manner is needed to validate the present findings.

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.

The effect of systemic antibiotics on clinical and patient-reported outcome measures of oral implant therapy with simultaneous guided bone regeneration.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present superiority study was to determine the effect of systemic antibiotics primarily on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and post-surgical complications in patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 236 medically and periodontally healthy patients received oral implants with simultaneous GBR at seven centres. Pre-operative antibiotics of 2 g amoxicillin were prescribed to the test group 1 hr prior to surgery and 500 mg thrice daily on days 1-3 after surgery. The control group was given a placebo. Group allocation was performed randomly. Primary outcome variables were PROMs recorded as visual analogue scale scores assessed on days 1-7 and 14 on pain, swelling, haematoma and bleeding. Post-operative complications as secondary outcome variables were examined at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks from surgery. Chi-square tests and repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (p > .05) between the two groups were detected for the evaluated PROMs. The same was noted with respect to post-surgical complications. Four implants were lost-three in the test group and one in the control group. CONCLUSION: In this trial, systemic antibiotics did not provide additional benefits to PROMs, nor the prevention of post-surgical complications in medically and periodontally healthy patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous GBR. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are still required to support the clinical outcomes of this study.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Abutment Material on Peri-implant Soft Tissue Color Measured Using Spectrophotometry.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current literature on the influence of abutment material (metal vs ceramic) and soft tissue thickness on peri-implant soft tissue discoloration in partially edentulous patients restored with implant-supported single crowns. METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search was performed to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) up to and including March 2017. The search was complemented by a manual search of related bibliographies. Selection of studies was made independently by two reviewers based on the inclusion criteria. Spectrophotometric data (ΔE values) and soft tissue thickness values were extracted, and, whenever applicable, a meta-analysis using a random-effects approach was performed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 208 titles and 30 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 13 articles, resulting in 6 included RCTs. Meta-analysis of a total of 266 abutments revealed significantly lower ΔE values for ceramic abutments when compared to the overall metal abutments (z test value = 1.99, P = .05), with a mean difference of 1.41 (95% CI 0.02, 2.80). Nonsignificant differences were found between titanium and zirconia (z test value = 1.59, P = .11). Limited information on the correlation between soft tissue thickness and ΔE values was found. Hence, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of this question. CONCLUSION: The color outcome of the peri-implant soft tissue might be influenced by the abutment material. Ceramic abutments appear to provide an improved color matching between peri-implant soft tissues and soft tissues around natural teeth when compared to metallic abutments. These findings support the preference for all-ceramic or "white" abutments in esthetically demanding cases.

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.

Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.

European Association for Osseointegration Delphi study on the trends in Implant Dentistry in Europe for the year 2030.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential trends for the year 2030 in dental implant dentistry in Europe using the Delphi methodology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A steering committee and a management team of experts in implant dentistry were created and validated a questionnaire including 60 questions, divided in eight topics. The survey was conducted in two rounds using an anonymous questionnaire, which provided the participants in the second round with the results of the first. Each question had three possible answers, and the results were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: A total of 138 experts were invited to participate in the survey. From all the invited experts, 52 answered in both the first and second rounds. Three different consensus categories were established based on the percentage of agreement: no consensus (<65%); moderate consensus (65%-85%); and high consensus (≥86%). Within the topic categories, a consensus was reached (mainly moderate consensus) for the majority of questions discussed among experts during a face to face consensus meeting. However, consensus was not reached for a small number of questions/topics. CONCLUSIONS: About 82% of the questions reached consensus. The consensus points towards a lower number of implants to replace chewing units, with implants surfaces made of bioactive materials with reduced micro-roughness using mainly customized abutments with polished surfaces and an internal implant-abutment connection (85%). CBCT-3D technologies will be the main tool for pre-surgical implant placement diagnosis together with direct digital restorative workflows. There will be an increase in the incidence of peri-implantitis, although there will be more efficient interventions its treatment and prevention.

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.

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been clinically examined 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's 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 35 included studies on implant-supported crowns. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8-99.1) for metal-ceramic implant supported SCs (n = 4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3-99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n = 912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7-91.0) of the metal-ceramic SCs (n = 1,300) experienced no biological/technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n = 76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6-93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metal-ceramics. The 5-year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal-ceramic, 2.8% zirconia-ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconia-ceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metal-ceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3 years follow-up time and clinical examination of the present systematic review. CONCLUSION: Zirconia-ceramic implant-supported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metal-ceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the material groups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures.

Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Prosthodontics and implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS: A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.

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.

Reconstructive aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018.

OBJECTIVES: The tasks of this working group were to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficiency and efficacy of the digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of fixed implant reconstructions, to assess the performance of all-ceramic fixed implant reconstructions and, finally, to evaluate the outcomes of internally and externally connected implant abutments and reconstructions. METHODS: Four reviews were available analyzing the current literature on the respective topics. One review dealt with the efficiency and efficacy of digital and conventional fabrication workflows. Two reviews analyzed the outcomes of all-ceramic fixed implant reconstructions, one focusing on single-implant reconstructions and the other evaluating multiple-unit implant fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The fourth review evaluated the clinical outcome on external, respectively, internal implant-abutment connections. These reviews were the basis for the discussions within the group and at the plenary sessions. RESULTS: The present consensus report gives the consensus statements, the clinical recommendations, and the implications for future research as discussed and approved by the plenum of the consensus conference. The four manuscripts by Mühlemann et al., Rabel et al., Pieralli et al., and Pjetursson et al. are published as part of the journal supplement of the present EAO consensus conference.