Survival and complication rates of tooth- and implant-supported restorations after an observation period up to 36 years.

BACKGROUND: Tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses are well-documented and aesthetic treatment alternatives, and after a comprehensive periodontal treatment, a protocol with a good long-term prognosis if the maintenance program is strictly followed. AIM: To reexamine a pre-existing patient cohort in order to obtain estimated long-term survival and complication outcomes of fixed dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, patients treated with fixed dental prostheses between 1978 and 2002 were reexamined between 2019 and 2020. The restorations were divided in single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by teeth (TSC, FPTDP) and implants (ISC, FPIDP). Survival and complication rates were obtained. Kaplan-Meier functions were used to model complication probabilities, and average hazard ratios of different strata were compared using weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: The mean observation time of 40 patients and 223 reconstructions was 20.3 (±9.7, 1.2-36.2) years. The estimated survival rates were 84% (CI: 77%-92%) for TSC, 63% (CI: 51%-79%) for FPTDP, 87% (CI: 71%-100%) for ISC, and 64% (CI: 34%-100%) for FPIDP after 25 years. Biological complications included carious lesions (10.6%), periodontitis (7.9%), and peri-implantitis (6.8%). Technical complications included chipping (20.2%) and loss of retention (10.8%). CONCLUSION: Biological complications lead to abutment loss in more than two-thirds of cases, regardless of the type of abutment (tooth or implant). Technical complications are less associated with abutment loss than biological complications.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported zirconia fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension: A proof-of-principle study with a follow-up of at least 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability of full zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension (FDPCs) after at least 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients in need of implant-supported single unit crowns (SUC) and FDPCs in posterior areas were enrolled. After implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with screw-retained full-zirconia FDPCs. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP), and presence/absence of mechanical/technical complications were recorded. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e., recall appointment 3-6 months after implant loading [T0]) to the follow-up examination (i.e., latest recall appointment after at least 12 months after T0 [T1]), were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients with 34 FDPCs (31 SUCs and 3 FDPs) supported by 37 implants were available for analysis after a mean loading time of 2.6 ± 1.5 years (range: 13-87 months). No implants were lost. MBLs and mean PPD values did not change statistically significantly from T0 to T1 from 0.92 mm ± 0.42 to 0.96 mm ± 0.38 (95% CI: -0.07/0.17; p = .418) and from 2.99 mm ± 0.70 to 3.27 mm ± 0.71 (95% CI: -0.11/0.68; p = .25) respectively. Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 22 cases. Screw-loosening and zirconia chipping occurred 1× in 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present proof-of-principle study, the use of full-zirconia FDPCs in posterior areas seems a valid and safe short-term treatment option.

Four single implant-supported crowns replacing the maxillary incisors: A retrospective report of 10 cases with 2-9 years of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective case series aimed to assess the stability of the papilla around four single crowns supported by narrow-diameter implants replacing all maxillary incisors. Secondary objectives included assessment of marginal bone level stability, incidence of technical and biological complications, and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals with four adjacent implants in maxillary incisor sites, placed with a 3 mm inter-implant distance and rehabilitated with single crowns were included. Retrospective data were obtained from photographs and radiographs taken at the delivery of the prosthesis (baseline-T0). Patients were then recalled (≥2 years after T0) for clinical and radiographic examination (follow-up-T1). Photographs were obtained and patient satisfaction was assessed using a visual analogue scale. Papilla height and marginal bone level were compared over time. RESULTS: Data from 10 patients with medium-low smile lines and rehabilitated with 40 implants, in function for 5.4 ± 1.9 years, were analyzed. The papilla height between implants (T0: 2.3 ± 0.9 mm; T1: 2.6 ± 0.7 mm; p = .011) and between tooth and implant (T0: 3.4 ± 0.9 mm; T1: 3.8 ± 0.8 mm; p = .025) increased significantly over the years. The marginal bone level remained stable over time (T0: 0.88 ± 0.57 mm; T1: 0.71 ± 0.67 mm; p = .007). Patients were highly satisfied (97.7 ± 0.3%) with the treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: Within its limitations, this study demonstrated that four single implant-supported crowns placed at maxillary incisor sites may exhibit soft tissue and marginal bone stability over a long period of time. This treatment approach, however, should be restricted to few patients as it requires a proper case selection and skillful execution of all surgical and prosthetic steps.

Conservatively replacing missing anterior teeth with resin bonded ceramic restorations.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes improvements in materials and adhesion technologies that have facilitated new, minimally invasive treatment for the replacement of missing anterior teeth. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: In the first of two case reports presented, the treatment of a 13-year-old female patient with a missing right lateral mandibular incisor is described. The patient was told she could not have an implant placed until she was 25 years of age and space post orthodontics was inadequate for implant placement. Treatment options included: a provisional removable appliance (flipper), an Essix appliance, or a resin-bonded one-wing lithium disilicate bridge with only slight modification to the right central incisor and a lingual wing on the canine. The second case report describes an adult female patient who had an impacted maxillary left canine that could not be pulled into position and wanted a replacement for the missing No. 11. This article demonstrates how the use a two-abutment bridge consisting of an inlay in the first premolar and a lingual wing with a proximal retention groove and a vertical path of insertion is a viable alternative to an implant or a conventional bridge to replace a maxillary canine with minimal removal of tooth structure. CONCLUSION: With the advent of new ceramic materials and improved adhesion minimally invasive prosthesis can be fabricated to replace missing teeth in the esthetic zone. Usually, one wing with a zirconia framework is recommended but Lithium disilicate can also be used depending on occlusal forces. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) can be used on occasion as a viable alternative to implants but case selection and adherence to appropriate adhesive techniques are key to longevity.

Digital measurement method for comparing the absolute marginal discrepancy of three-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses fabricated using conventional and digital technologies.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, control of the marginal fit of fixed dental prostheses is hindered by evaluation method, which needs to be further improved to increase its clinical applicability. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the absolute marginal discrepancy of three-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses fabricated by conventional and digital technologies using a digital measurement method based on the digital impression technology and open source software. METHODS: A digital workflow and the conventional impression combined with the lost-wax heat-pressed technique were adopted to separately fabricate 10 glass ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Three-dimensional data for the abutments, fixed dental prostheses, and fixed dental prostheses seated on the abutments, were obtained using a dental scanner. The two datasets were aligned using registration technology, specifically "multi-points registration" and "best fit alignment," by reverse engineering software. Subsequently, the three-dimensional seated fit between the fixed dental prostheses and abutments were reconstructed. The margin of the abutment and crown was extracted using edge-sharpening and other functional modules, and the absolute marginal discrepancy was measured by the distance between the margin of the abutment and crown. One-way analysis of variance was used to statistically analyze the measurement results. RESULTS: Using the digital measurement method, the mean value of absolute marginal discrepancy for fixed dental prostheses fabricated by the conventional method was 106.69 ± 6.46 µm, and that fabricated by the digital workflow was 102.55 ± 6.96 µm. The difference in the absolute marginal discrepancy of three-unit all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses fabricated using the two methods was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The digital measurement method for absolute marginal discrepancy was preliminarily established based on open source software and applied in three-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses. The absolute marginal discrepancy of three-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses fabricated using digital technology was comparable to that of conventional technique.

The Effect of Preceramic Soldering on Fracture Resistance of 4-Unit Zirconia Fixed Dental Prostheses.

PURPOSE: Preceramic soldering of zirconia may deliver better fitting restorations. However, there is not sufficient evidence regarding the influence of preceramic soldering of zirconia restorations on mechanical strength. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preceramic soldering on the fracture load of 4-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty samples of 4-unit FDPs between maxillary right first premolar and maxillary right second molar were prepared and two restorative materials were used as a framework (Z) and monolithic restoration (M). The samples were divided into two subgroups as control (C) and study (S). The restorations of study groups (S) were divided into two pieces and soldered with a bonding material (DCM HotBond Zirkon). The groups were divided into two subgroups for thermal cycle (T) application. After soldering and thermal cycling application, 4-point bending test was applied to the samples at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min in a universal testing machine and the fracture load was recorded. The data was analyzed statistically, and the level of significance was set at α = 0.001. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found among the groups, based on the results of maximum failure loads (p < 0.001). The highest mean failure load was observed in the ZCT(-) group (1094.1 + 139.77 N), while the lowest mean failure load was obtained in the ZST(+) group (627.7 + 82.14 N). No significant difference was found among the groups MC and MS, MC, and ZC groups (p > 0.001). Thermal aging application caused lower fracture resistance in control and soldering groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The preceramic soldering applications affected zirconia group negatively. However, the values were above the clinically acceptable static load bearing capacity for posterior teeth. Soldering did not cause a statistically significant difference for the fracture strengths of monolithic zirconia groups. Thermal cycling affected the fracture strength of zirconia and monolithic zirconia restorations negatively.

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.

Mechanical testing of four-unit implant-supported prostheses with extensive pink gingiva porcelain: The dentogingival prostheses proof of concept.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the probability of survival and failure modes of four-unit implant-supported porcelain fused to metal (PFM) dentogingival prostheses subjected to step-stress accelerated life testing (SSALT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen implant-supported PFM dentogingival prostheses with thin metallic infrastructures, which provided minimal ceramic support and improved esthetics were fabricated over external hexagonal connection UCLA abutments. SSALT was performed until specimen failure. Use level probability Weibull curve and reliability were calculated and plotted. Weibull modulus (m) and characteristic strength (η) were also calculated. Polarized light microscope and scanning electron microscope were used to characterize fractures. RESULTS: Failures were dictated by material strength rather than fatigue damage accumulation. The probability of survival for loads reaching 100 and 150 N in 100,000 cycles was 92 and 61%, respectively. No cracks or fractures were identified in the veneered porcelain, whereas abutment fixation screw fracture was the chief failure mode. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported PFM four-unit dentogingival prostheses with minimum metal framework dimensions presented favorable lifetime prediction under fatigue testing. Fractures were restricted to fixation screws. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In-vitro fatigue testing and failure mode analyses evidenced favorable lifetime prediction for 4-unit implant-supported dentogingival prostheses with minimum metal frameworks. Abutment fixation screw fracture might be the most frequent clinical complication. Since this proof of concept has been tested in-vitro, further studies including different restorative materials, as well as long-term clinical trials are warranted.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension. A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of at least 10 years.

AIM: To report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions (FDPCs) after a function time ≥10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with FDPCs in posterior areas were clinically and radiographically re-evaluated. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e. delivery of FDPC) to the follow-up examination were calculated and compared between implant surfaces adjacent to and distant from the cantilever extension. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) and presence/absence of mechanical/technical and biological complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 30 FDPCs supported by 60 implants were re-evaluated after a mean loading time of 13.3 ± 2.7 years (range: 10-18.6 years). One diameter-reduced implant carrying a cantilever extension fractured, yielding a patient-based survival rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 0.95/1.0). The mean marginal bone level change was not statistically significantly different from baseline to follow-up (1.2 mm ± 0.9 to 1.6 mm ± 1.7; 95% CI: -0.1/0.9; p > .05). The mean PPD changed statistically significantly from 3.4 mm ± 0.7 to 3.7 mm ± 0.7 (95% CI: 0.04/0.6; p = .02). Loss of retention occurred ≥ 1x in 9 patients (34.6%, 95% CI: 0.44/0.83). At follow-up, peri-implant health was diagnosed in 12 (46.2%), peri-implant mucositis in 7 (26.9%) and peri-implantitis in 7 (26.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of loss of retention, the use of implant-supported FDPCs in posterior areas represents a reliable long-term treatment option with a high implant survival rate and minimal peri-implant bone level changes irrespective of the location of the cantilever extension.

Guided-welded approach planning using digital scanning technology for combined screw- and conometric-retained implant-supported maxillary prosthesis.

AIM: The goal of this case series was to evaluate the clinical outcome at the 2-year follow-up of immediately loaded combined screw- and conometric-retained implant-supported full-arch restorations virtually planned using digital scanning technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This series included 12 patients presenting hopeless teeth in the maxilla treated with computer-guided flapless implant placement. A total of 72 implants were inserted. All implants were immediately loaded with a complete-arch restoration supported by an intraorally welded framework. Digital scanning technology was used to virtually plan a combined screw and conometric retention of the frameworks. Clinical parameters were assessed at 1 week and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up. RESULTS: The survival rate after 2 years was 98.6%, as one implant failed during the osseointegration period. No major prosthetic complications were observed such as issues with mobility, unscrewed abutments, disconnected conometric copings, and prosthetic fracture. Only one patient registered the chipping of a prosthesis. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the present study, the use of combined screw and conometric retention for fixed immediate restorations properly planned using digital scanning technology seems to be a viable treatment alternative to screw or conometric retention alone for immediately loaded rehabilitations.

Replacement of a missing molar despite proximal undercuts by using two single-retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses.

AIM: The aim of this case report is to present the minimally invasive replacement of a missing molar in the presence of considerable proximal undercuts of the adjacent abutment teeth. The use of two single-retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) made this therapy possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A missing mandibular right first molar required replacement. Two single-retainer RBFDPs were digitally designed in the shape of half a molar each and were milled using CAD/CAM from monolithic 3Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. The posterior RBFDP portion retained by the second molar was designed in the pontic contact area to create a common path of insertion for the anterior RBFDP portion with the distal surface of the second premolar. A slight interlocking between the proximal contact surfaces of the two pontics was designed to prevent future migration between the split restorations. Precise placement of the two RBFDPs during adhesive luting was ensured with the aid of a positioning splint. RESULTS: The patient was recalled after 10 months and was very satisfied with the minimally invasive molar replacement. CONCLUSION: Using two single-retainer RBFDPs to replace a molar in a split design enables a minimally invasive posterior tooth replacement despite considerable proximal undercuts of the adjacent abutment teeth.

Clinical evaluation of full-arch screw-retained implant-supported fixed prostheses and full-arch telescopic-retained implant-supported fixed prostheses: A 5-12 year follow-up retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prostheses and implants survival rate and peri-implantitis rate in edentulous patients treated with full-arch screw-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FSIFDPs) and full-arch telescopic-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FTIFDPs) over an observation period of at least 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2004 to 2012, 696 implants were inserted into 78 patients with 102 prostheses. The FSIFDP group comprised 31 patients (37 prostheses, 232 implants), whereas the FTIFDP group comprised 47 patients (65 prostheses, 464 implants). Prosthesis and implant estimated cumulative survival rates (ECSR) and estimated cumulative peri-implantitis rates (ECPR) were assessed. The follow-up period was 5-12 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with the log-rank test were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: The 12-year prosthesis ECSR was 96.8% (95% CI: 79.2-99.5, 36/37 prostheses) in the FSIFDP group and 96.4% (95% CI: 86.3-99.1, 63/65 prostheses) in the FTIFDP group, whereas the 12-year implant ECSR was 99.5% (95% CI: 96.4-99.9, 231/232 implants) in the FSIFDP group and 98.7% (95% CI: 96.9-99.5, 459/464 implants) in the FTIFDP group. The 12-year ECPR at the prosthesis level was 12.8% (95% CI: 12.7-47.6, 4/37 prostheses) in the FSIFDP group and 12.8% (95% CI: 11.4-24.1, 6/65 prostheses) in the FTIFDP group. The 12-year ECPR at the implant level was 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3-23.0, 6/232 implants) in the FSIFDP group and 2.2% (95% CI: 2.0-12.3, 7/464 implants) in the FTIFDP group. CONCLUSION: FTIFDPs have clinical results comparable to those of FSIFDPs. Therefore, FTIFDPs can be useful.

In Vivo and In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Fit of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Coverage Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate digital and conventional impressions for full-coverage restorations in terms of marginal and internal discrepancies. STUDY SELECTION: The analysis included in vivo and in vitro studies reporting the marginal or internal gap of full-coverage restorations that provide both the conventional and digital impression. The PubMed, Cochrane Trials, and Scopus databases were searched. The quality of clinical trials was rated using Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated, and a meta-analysis with subgroup analysis was conducted whenever it was possible. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles (8 prospective clinical trials and 26 in vitro studies) were selected to extract data after applying the predefined selection criteria. The standard mean difference (SMD) of the meta-analysis for marginal adaptation was -0.76 (95% confidence interval: -1.23 to -0.29) and -0.59 (95% confidence interval: -0.93 to -0.24) for in vitro and in vivo studies, respectively, indicating digital impressions provided significantly less marginal gap than conventional impressions in in vitro studies (P = .002). The impression technique did not significantly influence the internal adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in marginal adaptation between the digital and conventional groups are not significant for in vivo studies, but for in vitro studies, the digital impression resulted in better marginal adaptation. Based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for marginal adaptation, clinical studies were classified as high confidence and in vitro studies were graded moderate because of the inconsistency. Furthermore, high-quality studies are needed to confirm our results (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42017077925).

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.

Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implant failure, marginal bone loss (MBL), and other biological or technical complications of restorations supported by tilted and straight implants after at least 3 years in function. METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey to identify clinical studies published up to December 2017. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, the risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of relative risks (RRs) or mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/sensitivity analyses and application of the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 17 nonrandomized studies (eight prospective/nine retrospective) were included. The number of implants of the overall systematic review was 7,568 implants placed in 1,849 patients supporting either full-arch or partial implant prostheses. No difference in the failure of tilted and straight implants was seen (eight studies; 4,436 implants; RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.28; p = 0.74), with the quality of evidence being very low due to bias and imprecision. Likewise, no difference in MBL was seen between tilted and straight implants (16 studies; 5,293 implants; MD = 0.03 mm; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.32), with the quality of evidence being very low due to bias and inconsistency. Contradictory results regarding implant survival were found from prospective and retrospective studies, which could indicate bias from the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present systematic review, no effect of implant inclination on implant survival or peri-implant bone loss was found.

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses: Are the results of 2 abutment implants comparable to the results of 2 abutment teeth?

The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the performance of 3-unit bridges on teeth with 3-unit bridges on implants, evaluating survival of the bridges, survival of the teeth or implants, condition of the hard and soft tissues surrounding the supports, complications and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. A literature search was conducted using a combination of the search terms: fixed partial denture and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). An electronic search for data published until January 2017 was undertaken using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not, interventional or observational, which evaluated the results of 3-unit FDPs on either 2 implants or 2 abutment teeth. The search identified 1686 unique references. After applying eligibility criteria, 66 articles were included in the analysis. A total of 1973 3-unit FDPs were supported by teeth, and 765 were implant-supported. No significant differences were found either in the survival of the supporting abutments (P = .52; 99% vs 98.7% survival per year) or in the survival of the prostheses (P = .34; 96.4% vs 97.4% survival per year). Both treatments show an almost equally low complication rate, but there is a low level of reporting of hard and soft tissue conditions and PROM. It is concluded that implant-supported 3-unit FDPs seem to be a reliable treatment with survival rates not significantly different from the results of teeth-supported 3-unit FDPs.

Clinical procedures, designs, and survival rates of all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses in the anterior region: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to systematically review all the clinical articles about all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP) in the anterior region and assess their designs, clinical procedures, and survival rates. A systematic review was conducted after searching electronic databases PubMed/Medline and EBSCOhost Research Databases for articles published in English between 1987 and July 2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The inclusion criteria were selected as all clinical studies, original design clinical reports, and clinical reports (follow-up time more than 1 year) as all clinical information in the literature are desired to be included in the present review. RESULTS: The initial electronic search generated 472 articles from PubMed/Medline and 464 articles from EBSCOhost Research Databases. After selection of the articles as per the inclusion criteria, a final sample of 29 original studies is decided as: 1 randomized controlled clinical trial, 4 clinical controlled trials, 4 prospective cohort studies, 2 retrospective cohort studies, 6 original design clinical reports, and 12 clinical reports. After evaluation of the selected articles, it is likely that cantilever design all-ceramic RBFDPs are more successful than two retainer design in the anterior region; however, there is limited evidence for this result in the literature. CONCLUSION: Well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials with large sample size are still needed to achieve more accurate results about the clinical success rate of different RBFDPs designs in the anterior region. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Indications, designs, abutment teeth preparation, provisionalization, try-in, surface treatment options, and cementation of the all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses are described in this article. Clinical survival rates are also given in detail, so that clinicians can easily compare the current studies and give their own decision about all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses in the anterior region.