-
Journal of Periodontology May 2019The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols.
METHODS
An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables).
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30395355
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0338 -
The European Journal of Prosthodontics... Aug 2018Digital impressions by intraoral scanning (IOS) have become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional impressions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Digital impressions by intraoral scanning (IOS) have become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional impressions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the available IOS systems for dental impression, and identify the influencing factors on accuracy. The literature search was completed to retrieve all the studies that investigated the IOS accuracy when used to scan teeth. A total of 2305 studies were initially obtained. After applying the inclusion criteria, 32 studies were suitable for the analysis. The following systems were included in the review: Cerec Bluecam, Cerec Omnicam, Cadent iTero, Lava C.O.S, Lava True Definition, TRIOS, TRIOS Color, E4D, Planscan, MHT, Carestream 3500 and Zfx IntraScan. In comparison to conventional impressions, the IOS systems can be reliably used for diagnostic purposes and short-span scanning. However, for whole arch scanning, the IOS is susceptible for more deviation. The studies indicated variable outcome of the different IOS systems. While the accuracy of IOS systems appears to be promising and comparable to conventional methods, they are still vulnerable to inaccuracies. For prosthesis fabrication, the IOS accuracy is enhanced by reducing the span of scanning, and ensuring the scanned surfaces exhibit minimal irregularities.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Arch; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental; Optical Imaging
PubMed: 29989757
DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21 -
BMC Oral Health Sep 2017The continuous development in dental processing ensures new opportunities in the field of fixed prosthodontics in a complete virtual environment without any physical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The continuous development in dental processing ensures new opportunities in the field of fixed prosthodontics in a complete virtual environment without any physical model situations. The aim was to compare fully digitalized workflows to conventional and/or mixed analog-digital workflows for the treatment with tooth-borne or implant-supported fixed reconstructions.
METHODS
A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar) plus manual search up to 2016-09-16 focusing on RCTs investigating complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics with regard to economics or esthetics or patient-centered outcomes with or without follow-up or survival/success rate analysis as well as complication assessment of at least 1 year under function. The search strategy was assembled from MeSH-Terms and unspecific free-text words: {(("Dental Prosthesis" [MeSH]) OR ("Crowns" [MeSH]) OR ("Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported" [MeSH])) OR ((crown) OR (fixed dental prosthesis) OR (fixed reconstruction) OR (dental bridge) OR (implant crown) OR (implant prosthesis) OR (implant restoration) OR (implant reconstruction))} AND {("Computer-Aided Design" [MeSH]) OR ((digital workflow) OR (digital technology) OR (computerized dentistry) OR (intraoral scan) OR (digital impression) OR (scanbody) OR (virtual design) OR (digital design) OR (cad/cam) OR (rapid prototyping) OR (monolithic) OR (full-contour))} AND {("Dental Technology" [MeSH) OR ((conventional workflow) OR (lost-wax-technique) OR (porcelain-fused-to-metal) OR (PFM) OR (implant impression) OR (hand-layering) OR (veneering) OR (framework))} AND {(("Study, Feasibility" [MeSH]) OR ("Survival" [MeSH]) OR ("Success" [MeSH]) OR ("Economics" [MeSH]) OR ("Costs, Cost Analysis" [MeSH]) OR ("Esthetics, Dental" [MeSH]) OR ("Patient Satisfaction" [MeSH])) OR ((feasibility) OR (efficiency) OR (patient-centered outcome))}. Assessment of risk of bias in selected studies was done at a 'trial level' including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A judgment of risk of bias was assigned if one or more key domains had a high or unclear risk of bias. An official registration of the systematic review was not performed.
RESULTS
The systematic search identified 67 titles, 32 abstracts thereof were screened, and subsequently, three full-texts included for data extraction. Analysed RCTs were heterogeneous without follow-up. One study demonstrated that fully digitally produced dental crowns revealed the feasibility of the process itself; however, the marginal precision was lower for lithium disilicate (LS2) restorations (113.8 μm) compared to conventional metal-ceramic (92.4 μm) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) crowns (68.5 μm) (p < 0.05). Another study showed that leucite-reinforced glass ceramic crowns were esthetically favoured by the patients (8/2 crowns) and clinicians (7/3 crowns) (p < 0.05). The third study investigated implant crowns. The complete digital workflow was more than twofold faster (75.3 min) in comparison to the mixed analog-digital workflow (156.6 min) (p < 0.05). No RCTs could be found investigating multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP).
CONCLUSIONS
The number of RCTs testing complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics is low. Scientifically proven recommendations for clinical routine cannot be given at this time. Research with high-quality trials seems to be slower than the industrial progress of available digital applications. Future research with well-designed RCTs including follow-up observation is compellingly necessary in the field of complete digital processing.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Workflow
PubMed: 28927393
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Dec 2021Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the scientific evidence available from prospective clinical studies regarding denture hygiene... (Review)
Review
Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the scientific evidence available from prospective clinical studies regarding denture hygiene interventions. Therefore, investigations addressing the efficacy of removing microorganisms and biofilms formed on the surface of removable dental prostheses (RDPs) and denture base materials in situ and their impact on the properties of denture base materials, such as color stability, surface roughness, and dimensional stability, were included. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted from June 1975-May 2020 and included articles published in English that have been indexed in the digital archives of PubMed and Cochrane (including PubMed, Embase, ICTRP, CT.gov). A complementary manual search of the initially retrieved studies was conducted. Inclusion criteria comprised prospective clinical trials with a minimum of ten participants investigating (1) approaches and methods to remove biofilms formed on the surface of RDPs and denture base materials in situ and/or (2) the influence of these biofilms on denture base materials. A total of forty-four studies were included in this systematic review, which was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020189649). Results and Conclusions Data gathered from the systematic review indicate that the combined use of chemical and mechanical denture hygiene interventions is significantly more effective than single cleaning approaches. Only limited evidence is available from clinical studies regarding the effect of denture hygiene interventions on the properties of denture base materials.
Topics: Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34922732
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101644 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The 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).
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.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328190
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13306 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jun 2015To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs.
CONCLUSIONS
Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Metals
PubMed: 25842099
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2016The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.
RESULTS
After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous
PubMed: 25664612
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Ceramics; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328185
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13277 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2018The comparative assessment of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology and other fabrication techniques pertaining to marginal... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The comparative assessment of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology and other fabrication techniques pertaining to marginal adaptation should be documented. Limited evidence exists on the effect of restorative material on the performance of a CAD-CAM system relative to marginal adaptation.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate whether the marginal adaptation of CAD-CAM single crowns, fixed dental prostheses, and implant-retained fixed dental prostheses or their infrastructures differs from that obtained by other fabrication techniques using a similar restorative material and whether it depends on the type of restorative material.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search of English-language literature published between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2016, was conducted of the Medline/PubMed database.
RESULTS
Of the 55 included comparative studies, 28 compared CAD-CAM technology with conventional fabrication techniques, 12 contrasted CAD-CAM technology and copy milling, 4 compared CAD-CAM milling with direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), and 22 investigated the performance of a CAD-CAM system regarding marginal adaptation in restorations/infrastructures produced with different restorative materials.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the CAD-CAM restorations/infrastructures were within the clinically acceptable marginal discrepancy (MD) range. The performance of a CAD-CAM system relative to marginal adaptation is influenced by the restorative material. Compared with CAD-CAM, most of the heat-pressed lithium disilicate crowns displayed equal or smaller MD values. Slip-casting crowns exhibited similar or better marginal accuracy than those fabricated with CAD-CAM. Cobalt-chromium and titanium implant infrastructures produced using a CAD-CAM system elicited smaller MD values than zirconia. The majority of cobalt-chromium restorations/infrastructures produced by DMLS displayed better marginal accuracy than those fabricated with the casting technique. Compared with copy milling, the majority of zirconia restorations/infrastructures produced by CAD-CAM milling exhibited better marginal adaptation. No clear conclusions can be drawn about the superiority of CAD-CAM milling over the casting technique and DMLS regarding marginal adaptation.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Lasers
PubMed: 28967399
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.001 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2022To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Zirconium
PubMed: 34665900
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871