-
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2022Both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses are well-established methods for replacing missing teeth in partially or fully edentulous patients. Numerous... (Review)
Review
Both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses are well-established methods for replacing missing teeth in partially or fully edentulous patients. Numerous systematic reviews have been performed in recent years to evaluate the survival and complication rates of implant-retained fixed dental prostheses and implant-retained overdentures, displaying high 5-year survival rates ranging from 97.1% for fixed dental prostheses to 95%-100% for implant-retained overdentures. However, the survival rates only represent the prostheses remaining in use for a defined follow-up time, and do not account for the potential prosthetic complications that may have arisen and influence the general success of the implant treatment. The most common technical complications of fixed implant-retained single crowns are crown fracture, fractures of ceramic implant abutments, and esthetic problems. The predominant technical complication at multiple-unit, implant-retained fixed dental prostheses is fracture/chipping of the veneering ceramic. Reported technical complications for implant-retained overdentures are overdenture fracture or chipping of the veneer materials, whereas mechanical complications include implant fracture, attachment failure, and attachment housing or insert complications. To reduce the risk of such failures, a comprehensive pretreatment diagnostic work-up is essential, including defining the prosthetic goal with the aid of a wax-up or set-up and the associated ideal, prosthetically oriented three-dimensional implant position. Furthermore, selection of the ideal type of prosthesis, including the respective implant components and materials, is important for clinical long-term treatment success.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 35103329
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12416 -
Dental Materials Journal Mar 2020Since 1970s, a lot of effort has been devoted toward the development of dental implants. Dental implants are nowadays an indispensable part of clinical dentistry. The...
Since 1970s, a lot of effort has been devoted toward the development of dental implants. Dental implants are nowadays an indispensable part of clinical dentistry. The global dental implant market is expected to reach $13 billion in 2023. Although, the survival rate of dental implants has been reported above 90%, compromised bone conditions promote implant failure and endanger the current high success rates. The main concern is related to the aging population. Diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity and use of drugs are all medical conditions, which can hamper bone healing around dental implants. In view of this, research toward developing better methods of enhancing implant osseointegration have to be continued, especially in the presence of impaired bone condition. In this paper, the current changes and their future perspective are discussed.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Osseointegration; Titanium
PubMed: 31969548
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-140 -
Journal of Periodontology Oct 2019The incidence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a...
BACKGROUND
The incidence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a classification of these conditions has not yet been proposed. This lack in the literature may also lead to discrepancies in the reported treatment outcomes and thus misinform the clinician or the readers. The aim of the present article was therefore to present a classification of peri-implant PSTD at a single implant site.
METHODS
Four classes of PSTDs were discussed based on the position of the gingival margin of the implant-supported crown in relation to the homologous natural tooth. In addition, the bucco-lingual position of the implant head was also taken into consideration. Each class was further subdivided based on the height of the anatomical papillae.
RESULTS
Subsequently, for each respective category a surgical approach (including bilaminar techniques, the combined prosthetic-surgical approach or soft tissue augmentation with a submerged healing) was also suggested.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides a new classification system for describing PSTDs at single implant sites, with the appropriate recommended treatment protocol.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Esthetics, Dental; Tooth Crown; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31087334
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0616 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2021The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.
METHODS
A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.
RESULTS
For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.
CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Workflow
PubMed: 33478459
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2 -
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 -
Journal of Oral Science Oct 2021The recent literature on maxillary implant overdenture (IOD) was reviewed in order to clarify its predictability and establish treatment guidelines. Electronic searches... (Review)
Review
The recent literature on maxillary implant overdenture (IOD) was reviewed in order to clarify its predictability and establish treatment guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, and articles about maxillary IOD written after 1990 were reviewed, focusing on the following items: I. implant survival rate, II. maxillary IOD survival rate, III. number of implants, IV. attachment type, V. follow-up period, VI. implant system, and VII. opposing dentition. The review revealed an implant survival rate of 61-100% and an overdenture survival rate of 72.4-100%. The attachments used included bars, balls, locators, and telescope crowns. The minimum and maximum observation periods were 12 months and 120 months, respectively, and the number of implants used for supporting IOD ranged from 2 to 8. At present, there is no strong evidence to indicate that maxillary IOD is clearly superior for all the items examined. However, the existing data indicate that maxillary IOD has almost the same therapeutic effect as fixed implant superstructures, and is a treatment option that can be actively adopted for patients in whom fixed superstructures cannot be applied for various reasons.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Maxilla
PubMed: 34408111
DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.21-0087 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2021To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34642991
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13863 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Nov 2019The unavoidable extraction of teeth in the esthetic area can be overcome through different treatment modalities. Recently, immediate implants appeared as a minimally...
OBJECTIVE
The unavoidable extraction of teeth in the esthetic area can be overcome through different treatment modalities. Recently, immediate implants appeared as a minimally invasive approach to resolving these cases; however, immediate implant loading is not always possible or indicated. In these cases, an innovative approach through customized healing abutments could be used to preserve the soft tissue contour, eliminating the need for reopening surgery and the use of provisional restorations to condition the mucosal contour.
CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The present cases describe a simplified chairside approach to use customized healing abutments for immediate implants placed after tooth extraction in the anterior and posterior areas in order to maintain the soft tissue contours while reducing the clinical steps until delivering the final restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
This technique seems to be effective to guide the soft tissue healing around dental implants allowing a natural emergence profile with implant-supported restorations, reducing the number of treatment steps.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The use of customized healing abutments prepares soft tissue for the prosthetic stage preserving its contours and eliminating the need for reopening surgery.
Topics: Dental Abutments; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 31268244
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12512 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Nov 2022To test whether the emergence profile (CONVEX or CONCAVE) of implant-supported crowns influences the mucosal margin stability up to 12 months after insertion of the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
To test whether the emergence profile (CONVEX or CONCAVE) of implant-supported crowns influences the mucosal margin stability up to 12 months after insertion of the final restoration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty-seven patients with a single implant in the anterior region were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) CONVEX (n = 15), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a convex profile; (2) CONCAVE (n = 16), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a concave profile; (3) CONTROL (n = 16), no provisional (healing abutment only) and an implant-supported crown. All patients were recalled at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The stability of mucosal margin along with clinical, aesthetic, and profilometric outcomes as well as time and costs were evaluated. To predict the presence of recession, multivariable logistic regressions were performed and linear models using generalized estimation equations were conducted for the different outcomes.
RESULTS
Forty-four patients were available at 12 months post-loading. The frequency of mucosal recession amounted to 64.3% in group CONVEX, 14.3% in group CONCAVE, and 31.4% in group CONTROL. Regression models revealed that a CONVEX profile was significantly associated with the presence of recessions (odds ratio: 12.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.82-88.48, p = .01) compared with the CONCAVE profile. Pink aesthetic scores amounted to 5.9 in group CONVEX, 6.2 in group CONCAVE, and 5.4 in group CONTROL, with no significant differences between the groups (p = .735). Groups CONVEX and CONCAVE increased the appointments and costs compared with the CONTROL group.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of implant-supported provisionals with a CONCAVE emergence profile results in a greater stability of the mucosal margin compared with a CONVEX profile up to 12 months of loading. This is accompanied, however, by increased time and costs compared with the absence of a provisional and may not necessarily enhance the aesthetic outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS00009420.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Esthetics, Dental; Humans
PubMed: 35817419
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13696 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Feb 2022The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Implant-supported removable partial dentures compared to conventional dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial dentures (DERPDs) in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs: patients' quality of life and satisfaction) and to determine mechanical and biological complications associated with ISRPDs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed on four databases to identify studies treating Kennedy class I or II edentulous patients and which compared ISRPDs with DERPDs in terms of PROMS and studies, which evaluated mechanical and biological complications associated ISRPDs. Two authors independently extracted data on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications from these studies. The risk of bias was assessed for each study, and for PROMs, the authors performed a meta-analysis by using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were included based on the selection criteria. The difference in mean scores for quality of life (30.5 ± 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.9-36.1) and patient satisfaction (-20.8 ± 0.2; 95% CI, -23.7 to -17.8) between treatments with conventional and implant-supported removable dentures was statistically significant (p < .05). Implant-supported removable dentures improved patients' overall quality of life and satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications, such as clasp adjustment, abutment or implant loosening, marginal bone resorption, and peri-implant mucositis, were noted in ISRPDs during patient follow-up. Studies assessing PROMs were very heterogeneous (I = 65%, p = .85; I = 75%, p = .88).
CONCLUSIONS
ISRPDs significantly improved quality of life and patient satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications have been associated with ISRPDs treatment, requiring regular monitoring of patients to avoid the occurrence of these complications.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35014207
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.521