A 7.5-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: To compare marginal bone levels, biological, and technical outcomes of screw-retained versus cemented all-ceramic implant-supported zirconia-based single crowns after an observation period of 7.5 years. METHODS: Forty-four single implants in the esthetic zone in 44 patients (22 females, 22 males) were randomly assigned to two types of restorations: SR (screw-retained); veneered one-piece zirconia abutment and CR (cement-retained); veneered lithium disilicate crown intraorally cemented on a one-piece zirconia abutment. Patients were recalled annually up to 7.5 years and survival rates, biological, and technical parameters assessed. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients attended the 7.5-year follow-up visit (17 SR group, 14 CR group). The survival rate on the restorative level was 77.5% (74.0% CR, 81.0% SR, p = .6399). Median marginal bone loss (MBL) values yielded -0.073 mm (-0.305; 0.238) in the CR and -0.215 mm (-0.500; 0.555) in the SR group (intergroup p = .6194). Mean bleeding on probing (BoP) values were significantly in favor of group SR with 20 ± 17% compared to 40 ± 22% in group CR (p = .011). The overall biological complication rate amounted to 27.5% (42.1% CR, 14.3% SR, p = .0775), whereas the technical complication rate was 32.5% (42.1% CR, 23.8% SR, p = .314). In total, CR restorations showed significantly more complications (84.2% for CR, 38.1% for SR, p = .0041). CONCLUSION: One-piece zirconia-based single crowns on two-piece dental implants exhibited a high rate of technical and biological complications at 7.5 years of follow-up. Cemented restorations revealed significant higher rates of bleeding on probing and total complications compared to screw-retained restorations.

Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.

Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical studies evaluating efficiency and/or effectiveness of digital technologies as compared to conventional manufacturing procedures for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search from 1990 through July 2017 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials. Literature on efficiency and/or effectiveness during the impression session, the manufacturing process, and the delivery session were included. RESULTS: In total, 12 clinical studies were included. No meta-analysis was performed due to a large heterogeneity of the study protocols. Nine publications reported on posterior single implant crowns (SIC) and three on full-arch reconstructions. Mean impression time with intraoral scanners ranged between 6.7 and 19.8 min, whereas the range for conventional impressions was 8.8 and 18.4 min. In a fully digital workflow (FD-WF) for posterior SIC, mean fabrication time ranged between 46.8 and 54.5 min (prefabricated abutment) and 68.0 min (customized abutment). In a hybrid workflow (H-WF) including a digitally customized abutment and a manual veneering, mean fabrication time ranged between 132.5 and 158.1 min. For a conventional porcelain-fused-to-metal-crown, a mean time of 189.8 min was reported. The mean time for the delivery of posterior SIC ranged between 7.3 and 7.4 min (FD-WF), 10.5 and 12.5 min (H-WF), and 15.3 min (conventional workflow, C-WF). The FD-WF for posterior SIC was more effective than the H-/C-WF. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the studied digital technologies increased time efficiency for the laboratory fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions. For posterior SIC, the model-free fabrication, the use of prefabricated abutments, and the monolithic design was most time efficient and most effective.

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.

Sinus Floor Elevation with Biphasic Calcium Phosphate or Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: Clinical and Histomorphometric Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To clinically and histomorphometrically compare a biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sinus floor elevation procedures (lateral window) were performed randomly applying either BCP (test) or DBBM (control). At 6 months, bone biopsy specimens were harvested and dental implants were placed. The proportions of new bone, residual grafting material, and nonmineralized soft tissue were calculated. Four months after implant placement, the prosthetic reconstructions were inserted and the implant survival was assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were treated; 25 were randomly allocated to the BCP group and 26 to the DBBM group. After 6 months in 50 patients, bone biopsy specimens could be harvested, and a total of 121 implants could be placed subsequently. The histomorphometric analysis revealed a comparable percentage of new bone in both groups (BCP 35.9%, DBBM 35.4%; P > .05). The remaining grafting material was significantly lower with BCP (25.3%) compared with DBBM (45.9%; P < .001). Nonmineralized tissue was significantly higher for the BCP group (38.1%) compared with the DBBM group (18.2%; P < .001). The implant survival rate at loading was assessed at the level of the patients (96.0% for BCP and 88.8% for DBBM; P > .05) and at the level of the implants (96.9% for BCP and 94.7% for DBBM; P > .05). CONCLUSION: Grafting with DBBM or BCP showed similar percentages of new bone 6 months after sinus floor elevation. Implant survival presented no significant difference until loading.

Cemented vs screw-retained zirconia-based single implant reconstructions: A 3-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present randomized clinical trial was to test whether or not the use of screw-retained all ceramic implant-borne reconstructions results in clinical, technical, and biologic outcomes similar to those obtained with cemented all ceramic reconstructions. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in clinical, technical, and biological parameters between the two types of retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients randomly received 20 cemented reconstruction (CR) and 24 screw-retained (SR) all ceramic single crowns on two-piece dental implants with nonmatching implant-abutment junctions. All patients were recalled after crown insertion, at 6 months, 1 year, as well as at 3 years. At these visits, biological and radiographic evaluations were performed. Technical outcomes were assessed using modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: During 3 years of follow-up, eight patients (18.2%) lost the reconstruction due to technical (6 patients, 13.6%, 2 CR and 4 SR group) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5%, only CR group). Thirty-two subjects with 18 SR and 14 CR reconstructions attended the FU-3Y, whereas four patients (9.1%, 2 SR, 2 CR) were not available (drop-outs). Biological, technical, and radiographic outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups (P > 0.05). One implant (2.3%) was lost in the CR group. One more cemented crown (2.3%) had to be removed because of peri-implant disease. Six patients (13.6%) lost the reconstructions due to a fracture of the zirconia abutment (4 SR, 2 CR). The mean marginal bone level at 3 years was -0.4 mm (-0.5; -0.3) in group SR and - 0.4 mm (-0.6; -0.3) group CR (P = 0.864). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, CR and SR exhibited similar survival technical, biological and radiographic outcomes. The rate of technical complications was high in both groups.

Assessment of the nonoperated root after apical surgery of the other root in mandibular molars: a 5-year follow-up study.

INTRODUCTION: If a surgical approach is chosen to treat a multirooted tooth affected by persistent periapical pathosis, usually only the affected roots are operated on. The present study assessed the periapical status of the nonoperated root 5 years after apical surgery of the other root in mandibular molars. METHODS: Patients treated with apical surgery of mandibular molars with a follow-up of 5 years were selected. Patient-related and clinical parameters (sex, age, smoking, symptoms, and signs of infection) before surgery were recorded. Preoperative intraoral periapical radiographs and radiographs 5 years after surgery were examined. The following data were collected: tooth, operated root, type and quality of the coronal restoration, marginal bone level, length and homogeneity of the root canal filling, presence of a post/screw, periapical index (PAI) of each root, and radiographic healing of the operated root. The presence of apical pathosis of the nonoperated root was analyzed statistically in relation to the recorded variables. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Signs of periapical pathosis in the nonoperated root 5 years after surgery (PAI ≥ 3) could be observed in only 3 cases (8.1%). Therefore, statistical analysis in relation to the variables was not possible. The PAI of the nonoperated root before surgery had a weak correlation with signs of apical pathosis 5 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperated roots rarely developed signs of new apical pathosis 5 years after apical surgery of the other root in mandibular molars. It appears reasonable to resect and fill only roots with a radiographically evident periapical lesion.