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.

Monolithic Hybrid Abutment Crowns (Screw-Retained) Versus Monolithic Hybrid Abutments With Monolithic Crowns (Adhesively Cemented): Three-Year Data of a Prospective Clinical Split-Mouth Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares the restoration of single-tooth implants with screw-retained lithium-disilicate hybrid-abutment crowns and single-tooth lithium-disilicate crowns adhesively bonded to hybrid abutments with regard to objective clinical and subjective patient-specific evaluation criteria over a time of observation of 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two bone-level implants were placed in contralateral sides of the same jaw in 10 patients, each with two single-tooth gaps. After osseointegration, implants were uncovered and an impression was taken. In accordance with the split-mouth design, one implant in each patient was restored with a screw-retained hybrid abutment crown and the other implant with a hybrid abutment and an adhesively bonded single-tooth crown. The restorations were randomly allocated to the implants. Prefabricated titanium bases were used. The ceramic abutments and restorations were fabricated monolithically with pressed lithium-disilicate ceramic. An objective evaluation (survival, technical, or biological complications, FIPS) by the practitioner and a subjective evaluation (satisfaction, OHIP) by the patient were carried out after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after restoration placement. RESULTS: Both restoration types showed a survival rate of 100% after 3 years of observation. No technical or biological complications occurred. No significant difference was observed between the two types of restoration neither for objective (survival, technical or biological complications, FIPS) nor subjective (satisfaction, OHIP) evaluation criteria (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed between screw-retained and cemented pressed lithium-disilicate restorations on bone-level implants for both objective and subjective evaluation criteria, respectively. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Monolithic hybrid-abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutments with single-tooth crowns (cemented) made of pressed lithium disilicate can be used to successfully restore single implants.

Digital technique to analyze the wear of screw-retained implant supported metal-ceramic dental prostheses and natural tooth as antagonist: a pilot study.

The aim of this study was to describe a novel digital technique to analyze the wear of screw-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic dental prostheses and natural tooth as antagonist.Materials and methods Ten patients were consecutively included to rehabilitate partial edentulism by dental implants. Both the screw-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic dental prostheses and the natural tooth as antagonist were submitted to a digital impression through an intraoral scan to generate a Standard Tessellation Language digital file preoperatively (STL1), at 3 months (STL2), and 6 months (STL3) follow-up. Afterwards, an alignment procedure of the digital files (STL1-STL3) was performed on a reverse engineering morphometric software (3D Geomagic Capture Wrap) and volume changes at the screw-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic dental prostheses and the natural tooth as antagonist were analyzed using Student's t-test. Moreover, Gage R&R statistical analysis was conducted to analyze the repeatability and reproducibility of the digital technique.Results Gage R&R showed a variability attributable to the digital technique of 3.8% (among the measures of each operator) and 4.5% (among operators) of the total variability; resulting repeatable and reproducible, since the variabilities were under 10%. In addition, statistically significant differences were shown at the wear volume (µm3) of both the natural tooth as antagonist (p < 0.0001) and the screw-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic dental prostheses between 3- and 6-months follow-up (p = 0.0002).Conclusion The novel digital measurement technique results repeatable and reproducible to analyze the wear of screw-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic dental prostheses and natural tooth as antagonist.

Clinical assessment of maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis fabricated from digital versus conventional full- arch implant impression. A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and prosthodontic complications of maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis fabricated from digital versus conventional full- arch implant impression. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 28 participants with edentulous maxillary arches were randomly selected and enrolled in two equal groups; Group I conventional impression group (CIG) and Group II Digital impression group (DIG). All patients were rehabilitated with maxillary screwretained implant prosthesis retained by 6 implants. Peri-implant MBL and prosthodontic complications and were registered at 6, 12, and 24 months (m). Data was collected and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Regarding the effect of time, there was a statistically significant increase in MBL at 6, 12 and 24 m follow-up periods (P<.001). As for the effect of groups, there was no statistically significant difference in MBL between CIG and DIG at 6, 12 and 24 m where P value was 0.083, 0.087 and 0.133 respectively. Prosthetic complications were recorded 19 times in the conventional group and 12 times in the digital group with no significant difference between both groups (P=.303). CONCLUSION: Digital full -arch implant impression is a reliable impression technique and may represent an alternative to conventional impression technique in the fabrication of maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis.

Customized scan bodies to facilitate intraoral scanning for full arch implant prosthesis: A dental technique.

This article presents the design of customized resin scan bodies with different forms and their use to facilitate intraoral scanning of a maxillary full arch implant case with five implants. The aim is to limit the distance between the scan bodies and to create definite landmarks to facilitate the scanning process in full arch implant cases.

Technique for cementing screwmentable implant crowns to prevent misalignment.

The purpose of this article is to describe a technique to accurately cement implant crowns on an abutment extraorally and prevent misalignment that might change the desired position of the crown on the abutment when delivered. An implant-retained crown was tried-in and occlusal and interproximal contacts were adjusted for delivery. The cementation verification aid was fabricated using a polyvinylsiloxane bite registration material (Blu Mousse) to cement the crown onto the abutment extraorally to ensure proper alignment of the crown on the abutment. Cementation of the prosthesis occurred with no adjustments required to the interproximal or occlusal contacts during final delivery. This article provides a technique that aims to increase accuracy in the placement of the crown on the abutment when cementing screwmentable crowns.

CEMENTED AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS MAY HAVE A COMPARABLE RISK FOR PERI-IMPLANT MUCOSITIS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Reis INRD, Fukuoka GL, Nagay BE, Pannuti CM, Spin-Neto R, Silva EVFD. Incidence of peri-implant disease associated with cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Oct 2:S0022-3913(23)00563-2. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.030. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37793953. SOURCE OF FUNDING: None declared. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clinical evaluation and quantitative occlusal change analysis of posterior implant-supported all-ceramic crowns: A 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the survival and complication rates of posterior screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2 )/veneered zirconia (ZrO2 ) single implant crowns (SICs), as well as analyze the occlusal changes observed during a 3-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients were included and randomly divided into two groups. The test group consisted of 17 patients who received monolithic-LS2 -SIC, while the control group consisted of 16 patients who received veneered-ZrO2 -SIC. Implant/prosthesis survival rates, technical complications, peri-implant soft tissue conditions, and quantitative occlusal changes of SIC (obtained by the intra-oral scanner and analyzed in reverse software Geomagic Control 2015) were assessed at 1- and 3-year follow-ups. Bone loss and Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS) were evaluated at a 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: After a 3-year follow-up period, one patient dropped out of the follow-up. No implant loss was observed. One crown was fractured, resulting in prosthesis survival rates of 93.75% for the monolithic group and 100% for the veneered group. A technical complication rate of 25% (4/16) was observed in the veneered group (p = .333). No significant differences in the marginal bone loss were observed at the 3-year follow-up (0.00 (-0.22, 0.17) mm versus 0.00 (-0.12, 0.12) mm, p = .956). The total FIPS scores for the test group were 9.0 (9.0, 9.0), while the control group received scores of 9.0 (8.0, 10.0) (p = .953). The changes in mean occlusal clearance were 0.022 ± 0.083 mm for the test and 0.034 ± 0.077 mm for the control group (at 3 years, p = .497). The changes in occlusal contact area were 1.075 ± 2.575 mm2 for the test and 1.676 ± 2.551 mm2 for the control group (at 3 years, p = .873). CONCLUSION: After a 3-year follow-up, screw-retained monolithic LS2 and veneered ZrO2 SIC demonstrated similar survival rates. The occlusal performance of implant prostheses needs to be closely examined during follow-up, and appropriate occlusal adjustments need to be considered.

Evaluation of the dislodgement force of splinted restorations with engaging conical abutments over multiple nonparallel implants (in-vitro study).

BACKGROUND: Splinted multiunit cement-retained restorations with screw access channels over engaging abutments are viable implant prosthetic options. However, information regarding the maximum degree of divergence between multiple implants is lacking. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the maximum degree of divergence between 2 adjacent implants with conical connections that allows insertion and removal of splinted restorations with engaging preparable abutments or titanium base abutments. METHODS: Two implants were aligned in a stone base, one straight and the other at an angle ranging from 0 to 20 degrees. The implants represented an implant system that had an internal conical connection and a hexed abutment engaging the base of the connection. Two straight preparable engaging cement retained abutments were screwed onto the implants and splinted together using acrylic resin. A total of 11 angles were tested, with 7 specimens for every angle. Evaluation of dislodging force was performed by pulling out the splinted abutments after unscrewing them. This was performed subjectively by 3 blinded investigators who applied a tactile pulling force. A scale of 0-10 was used to estimate the pulling force. Objectively the dislodging force was measured in Newtons using a universal testing machine. A statistical correlation was made between the subjective and objective dislodging force values using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The mean subjective values increased gradually from 0 to 16 degrees. A sudden rise was noticed at 18 degrees (9.71 ± 0.23) and, at 20 degrees, the investigators were not able to remove the splinted abutments from the implants. The mean objective dislodgement force values increased gradually from 0 to16 degrees and abruptly from 16 degrees (13.57 ± 0.45 N) to 18 degrees (25.40 ± 0.66 N) and 20 degrees (35.22 ± 0.64). The correlation between the subjective and the objective evaluations assessed using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was 0.98 indicating a statistically significant correlation (P < .001). As the objective dislodging force increased, the subjective dislodgement difficulty increased. CONCLUSIONS: Splinting cement retained restorations with screw access channels on engaging abutments is possible when multiple implants with conical connections having an internal flare angle of 8 degrees are used, with implant divergence of up to 16 degrees.

Comparison of functional and esthetic outcomes in digital versus analog rehabilitation of one-piece screw-retained implant crowns placed at second stage surgery.

PURPOSE: Analog and digital impressions are established procedures for restoration of single-tooth implants. In this study, single-tooth implants were restored with definitive restorations during second-stage surgery. Analog and digital workflows were compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty single-tooth implants were examined in total. In 40 implants, an index was taken immediately after implant placement using composite resin to fabricate the final crowns (analog workflow). For the other 40 single-tooth implants, intraoral intraoperative scans were performed (digital workflow) during primary surgery. The custom-fabricated screw-retained crowns were placed during second-stage surgery. Photographs and examinations for the scores were taken at the time of the follow-up visit, 1-4 years after placement of the crowns. The number of treatment appointments required was recorded and the modified pink esthetic score (PES) was determined. Additionally, the functional implant prosthetic score (FIPS) was measured. RESULTS: The mean PES was 12.15/14 for the digital workflow and 11.95/14 for the analog workflow. The most common deficit was incomplete papillae for both workflows. Three treatment appointments were required for both workflows: (1) Scan and/or impressions making and patient consent, (2) implant placement, and (3) second-stage surgery with crown insertion. The FIPS was 9.1/10 for the digital workflow group and 9.2/10 for the analog workflow group. Common deficits presented as missing papillae as well as open approximal contacts. The FIPS was not significantly different between workflows (p = 0.679). The PES also did not show a statistically significant difference for both workflows (p = 0.654), however, the analog workflow showed better values for the papillae (p < 0.05). A significant difference was also found in the other PES values, with the digital workflow showing better results here (p < 0.05). A chronological analysis of the results of the digital technique showed that the cases treated last had significantly better values than the cases treated first. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, both workflows allowed placement of the definitive crowns on single-tooth implants during second-stage surgery. Both workflows were found to be equivalent in terms of esthetic results in this study, although the digital workflow demonstrated a learning curve.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group. The outcome measures included operating time, glove perforations, postoperative pain, oral hygiene, fixation stability, occlusion, and mucosal coverage. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) with a 1:1 allocation ratio were included. There was a significant statistical difference regarding operation time and number of glove perforations in favor of group B as p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference regarding pain after 1 day (p < 0.001), 1 week (p < 0.001) in favor of group B, and at 4 weeks (p = 0.015), and 6 weeks (p = 0.002) in favor of group A. Regarding oral hygiene at 1 week (p = 0.021) and at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group B. Regarding mucosal coverage at 6 weeks, there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group A (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The modified screw-retained arch bar can be considered an alternative to conventional arch bar as it provided less application time and better operator safety. It also showed better patient satisfaction regarding pain and oral hygiene. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Maxillomandibular fixation with the conventional technique was modified to screw-retained arch bar which is less time-consuming and provides better patient and operator satisfaction. How to cite this article: Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, et al. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.

Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based restorations in terms of clinical, radiographic, and technical outcomes 5 years after insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with single-tooth implants were randomly restored with either a cemented lithium disilicate crown on a one-piece customized zirconia abutment (CEM, 17 patients) or a screw-retained crown based on a directly veneered one-piece customized zirconia abutment (SCREW, 16 patients). All patients were recalled for a baseline examination (7-10 days after crown insertion) and then annually up to 5 years. The following outcomes were assessed: marginal bone level (changes), technical, and clinical (bleeding on probing, plaque control record, probing depth, and keratinized tissue) parameters. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess differences between the two groups. RESULTS: At 5 years, 26 patients (13 in each group) were re-examined. The survival rates on the implant and restorative levels were 100% and 82.4% (equally for both groups), respectively. At 5 years, the median marginal bone level was located at -0.15 mm (IQR: -0.89 mm; 0.27 mm) (CEM) and -0.26 mm (IQR: -0.38 mm; 0.01 mm) (SCREW) below the implant shoulder (intergroup p = .9598). The median changes between baseline and the 5-year follow-up amounted to -0.23 mm (CEM; intragroup p = .0002) and -0.15 mm (SCREW; intragroup p = .1465) (intergroup p = .1690). The overall technical complication rate at 5 years was 15.4% (CEM) and 15.4% (SCREW) (intergroup p = 1.00). Clinical parameters remained stable over time (baseline to 5 years). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, screw-retained and cemented restorations rendered largely the same clinical, technical, and radiographic outcomes. Technical complications were frequent in both groups.

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.

3D-based buccal augmentation for ideal prosthetic implant alignment-an optimized method and report on 7 cases with pronounced buccal concavities.

OBJECTIVES: Screw-retained restoration of implants is advantageous for biological and esthetic reasons. Due to buccal concavities, however, this preferred type of restoration can only be used in about half of the anterior indications. Based on case series, an optimized method for the treatment of such indications is to be described; the clinical reliability is to be ascertained by means of measurements (before and after augmentation) and assigned to the current literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case series of seven cases with buccal concavities of the anterior alveolar ridge were treated with optimized method, which is presented step-by-step until the prosthetic restoration. The depths of the bone concavities were measured and related to the bone gain after augmentation procedure respectively after implantation. RESULTS: Linear measurements of the buccal concavities showed an average undercut of 4 mm [SD ± 1.13]. After healing period of six months, the buccal concavities could be compensated bony to such an extent that implants could be inserted in correct position and angulation. On average, there was a horizontal bone gain of 3.7 mm [SD ± 0.59]. Even after implantation and another six months of healing, stable bone dimensions could be assumed with an average of 4.3 [SD ± 0.83] mm of bone gain compared to baseline. In six of the seven cases, the favorite screw-retained, one-piece full-ceramic restoration could be fixed on the implants. Due to the implant axis, one case had to be treated with a cemented two-part full-ceramic system. CONCLUSIONS: With the described optimized method the most favorable screw-retained restoration can also be used in situations with unfavorable concavities of buccal bone. Especially for this indication, a special form of the horizontal deficit, the customized bone regeneration with titanium meshes is highly reliable in terms of healing and extent of augmentation. However, long-term results and a study/control group are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the presented protocol. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Since these situations require an augmentation that is up to 5 mm thick and a procedure that is as minimally invasive as possible appears to be necessary in the visible area, an optimized method is described in this publication.

Removal capability, implant-abutment connection damage and thermal effect using ultrasonic and drilling techniques for the extraction of fractured abutment screws: an in vitro study.

The aim of this work was to analyze and compare the removal capability, conical internal hex implant-abutment connection damage and thermal effect using ultrasonic and drilling techniques for the extraction of fractured abutment screws. Twenty abutment screws were randomly fractured into twenty dental implants and randomly extracted using the following removal techniques: Group A: drilling technique without irrigation (n = 10) (DT) and Group B: ultrasonic technique without irrigation (n = 10) (UT). The dental implants were submitted to a preoperative and postoperative micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scan to obtain a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) digital file that determined the wear comparison by morphometry. Moreover, the thermographic effects generated by the DT and UT removal techniques were registered using a thermographic digital camera. Comparative analysis was performed by comparing the volumetric differences (mm3) between preoperative and postoperative micro-CT scans and thermographic results (°C) using the Student t test. The DT extracted 8/10 and the US 9/10 abutment screws. The pairwise comparison revealed statistically significant differences between the volumetric differences of postoperative and preoperative micro-CT scans of the DT (- 0.09 ± - 0.02mm3) and UT (- 0.93 ± - 0.32mm3) study groups (p = 0.0042); in addition, the pairwise comparison revealed statistically significant differences between the thermographic values of the DT (38.12 ± - 10.82 °C) and UT (78.52 ± 5.43 °C) study groups (p < 0.001). The drilling technique without irrigation provides a less removal capability, less conical internal hex implant-abutment connection damage and less thermal effect than ultrasonic technique for the extraction of fractured abutment screws; however, the ultrasonic technique resulted more effective for the extraction of fractured abutment screws.

Screw-retained surgical guide for implant placement in terminal dentition patients with existing implants.

For patients with existing implants in need of additional implant placement, the use of the existing implants for guide fixation seems to be a logical alternative. Current options for the fabrication of surgical guides involve creating surgical guides that are mucosa-borne and/or retained by fixation pins. Since these existing techniques involve inherent inaccuracies, the fabrication of surgical guides that are screw-retained at the implant- or abutment-level would eliminate the introduction of those same fundamental inaccuracies. The purpose of the present technical report is to illustrate a step-by-step digitally planned guided implant placement protocol for terminal dentition patients with salvageable existing implants requiring full-arch implant rehabilitation. The advantages of this protocol include enhancing the accuracy of guided implant placement with screw-retention versus the traditional mucosa- or fixation pin support. Thus, this simplifies the transition from failing teeth to implants by ensuring that fixed provisionalization serves both functional and esthetic requirements. This protocol can also predictably reduce chairside time and adjustments at the surgical implant placement appointment.

Digital Workflow for Implant Placement and Immediate Chairside Provisionalization of a Novel Implant System without Abutment-A Case Report.

Dental implants have been placed millions of times worldwide, and the surgical procedure and implant design have steadily improved. The basic prosthetic connection, which makes use of an abutment, has changed little over the past decades. These days, implant placement with immediate provisionalization is an essential stage in implant dentistry and interdisciplinary treatment strategies. Temporary computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of implant-supported crowns restore esthetics and guarantee function during the restoration process and the osseointegration of the dental implant. This case report describes the digital planning; the immediate, static, computer-assisted implant surgery, and the immediate chairside provisionalization of a novel implant system that is directly screw-retained without an abutment.

Influence of Occlusal Stress on Implant Abutment Junction and Implant Bone Interface: A Finite Element Analysis Study.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the occlusal stress on the implant-abutment junction and implant-bone interface of a long-span implant-supported prosthesis made of two different prosthetic materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computerized tomography of the mandible was used to get the finite element model of the bone. The comparative groups were made as follows: S1 and S2 - 3.7 × 11 mm (44 region) and 4.5 × 11 mm (47 region), S1A and S2A - screw-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal prosthesis, S1B and S2B - cement-retained porcelain-fused-to-metal prosthesis, S1C and S2C - screw-retained zirconia prosthesis, and S1D - cement-retained zirconia prosthesis. Maximum stress generated on the implant-abutment interface of all the prostheses under vertical and oblique load was assessed. RESULTS: For all the comparative groups, maximum level of stress was generated at the cervical level of the implant-bone interface in comparison to the apical and middle-third level under both vertical and oblique load. No statistically significant difference between zirconia and porcelain-fused-to-metal prosthesis was seen at the implant-abutment interface and the cervical third of the implant-bone interface. A significant difference was found between all screw-retained and cement-retained groups. CONCLUSION: The present study concluded that the short implants in combination with standard-length implants using either porcelain-fused-to-metal or zirconia as prosthetic material in the form of long-span implant-supported prosthesis can be a viable treatment option in the posterior mandible. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The accuracy of the diagnosis, examination, and knowledge of the site where the implant must be inserted, and the choice of superstructure is important for the stability and lifespan of the implant prosthesis.

Clinical Success of Screw-retained Dental Implants: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the research was to review the literature on clinical evaluation and success of screw-retained dental implants by assessing the marginal bone loss (MBL). METHODS: Online electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched using appropriate keywords for the last 20 years, dated from January 1, 2000, till August 1, 2021, with a restriction on language. Additional sources like major journals, unpublished studies, conference proceedings, and cross-references were explored. Information curated for data extraction included methodology, population, type of implants used, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and additional sources identified a huge number, out of which 637 search results were screened, out of which 322 were duplicates. The remaining 315 unique studies were screened for the titles and abstracts, and 23 articles were selected for full-text screening. A total of six articles that matched the eligibility criteria were processed for qualitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Despite the uncertain retrievability of screw-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, this treatment option in fixed implant prosthodontics is a reliable and effective choice, especially for implant-supported long-span fixed partial dentures (FPDs), full-arch FPDs, and cantilever FPDs.

Short communication: Cemented implant reconstructions are associated with less marginal bone loss than screw-retained reconstructions at 3 and 5 years of loading.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse whether there is a difference in marginal bone levels (MBL) and the respective changes between cemented and screw-retained reconstructions at 3 and 5 years of loading. METHODS: Radiographic data from 14 prospective multicentre clinical trials following implant loading with fixed cemented (CEM) or screw-retained (SCREW) reconstructions with a 3- to 5-year follow-up were retrieved from a database. MBL and MBL changes were assessed at initiation of implant loading (BL), at 3 (FU-3) and 5 years (FU-5) thereafter. The presence of peri-implantitis was also determined. RESULTS: Data from 1,672 implants at BL, 1,565 implants at FU-3 and 1,109 implants at FU-5 were available. The mean MBL amounted to 0.57 mm (SD 0.87) at BL, 0.55 mm (SD 0.86) at FU-3 and 0.65 mm (SD 1.18) at FU-5. At FU-3, the mean MBL was 0.44 mm (SD 0.65) in group CEM and 0.63 mm (SD 0.99) in group SCREW showing a significant difference between the groups (intergroup <0.05). At FU-5, the mean MBL was 0.42 mm (SD 0.77) in CEM and 0.80 mm (SD 1.37) in SCREW, again with significant differences between both groups (p < .05). MBL changes between BL and FU-3 amounted to 0.11 mm (SD 1.02) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.17 mm (SD 1.03) (bone gain) in CEM. Similarly, mean MBL changes from BL to FU-5 amounted to 0.23 mm (SD 1.31) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.26 mm (SD 1.27) (bone gain) in CEM. The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 6.9% in CEM and 5.6% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .29063) at FU-3. At FU-5, peri-implantitis amounted to 4.6% in CEM and 6.2% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .28242). CONCLUSION: Cemented implant reconstructions compared with screw-retained reconstructions revealed higher marginal bone levels and similar rates of peri-implantitis during 5 years. The difference in MBL and the respective changes between the two groups, however, appear to be clinically negligible.