-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2019Different parameters can influence the adaptation of computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) inlay/onlay restorations. However, systematic... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Different parameters can influence the adaptation of computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) inlay/onlay restorations. However, systematic reviews to identify and discuss these parameters are lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature investigating all parameters that can influence both the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers for studies published in English between January 1, 2007 and September 20, 2017 on the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Factors investigated in the selected articles included the type of CAD-CAM system, virtual space parameters, version of the software, type of block, luting procedure, type of restoration, sample size and aging procedure, evaluation method, and number of measurement points per specimen.
RESULTS
A total of 162 articles were identified, of which 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies investigated adaptation with different restorative materials, 2 evaluated adaptation according to the type of preparation design, 9 compared adaptation before/after thermomechanical loading, and 2 before/after cementation, 1 study investigated marginal adaptation based on whether the optical scan was made intraorally or extraorally, 1 compared adaptation with 5 and 3 axis CAM systems, and 1 assessed adaptation with 4 different intraoral scanners. The risk of bias was high for 7, medium for 15, and low for 1 of the studies reviewed. The high level of heterogeneity across the studies excluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the studies reported clinically acceptable values for marginal adaptation. The performance of a CAD-CAM system is influenced by the type of restorative material. A nonretentive cavity preparation exhibited better adaptation than a retentive preparation. Most studies showed that thermomechanical loading affected the quality of marginal adaptation. Cementation increased marginal discrepancies. No statistically significant difference was found for marginal fit of onlays between intraoral and extraoral optical scans using a stone die. The number of milling axes, the type of digital camera, and the region measured were statistically significant in relation to marginal/internal adaptation. Values of adaptation recorded failed to reproduce the preestablished spacer parameters in the software. Clarification is needed concerning adaptation according to the type of preparation design, the type of material, the choice of intrinsic parameters for the CAD process, the type and shape of milling instruments, and the behavior of the material during milling. Adaptation of CAD-CAM inlay/onlays should be evaluated under clinical conditions.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Inlays
PubMed: 30509548
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.006 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023The objectives of the study were to assess the survival, failure, and technical complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (iFDPs) with pontic or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review evaluating the influence of the prosthetic material and prosthetic design on the clinical outcomes of implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior area.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of the study were to assess the survival, failure, and technical complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (iFDPs) with pontic or splinted crown (iS C) designs in the posterior area and compare the influence of prosthetic materials and prosthetic design on the outcomes.
METHODS
Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized-, prospective-, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of ≥12 months, evaluating the clinical outcomes of posterior iFDPs with pontic or iS Cs. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies reporting on 42 study arms were included in the present systematic review. The meta-analysis of the included studies indicated estimated 3-year survival rates of 98.3% (95%CI: 95.6-99.3%) for porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) iFDPs, 97.5% (95%CI: 95.5-98.7%) for veneered zirconia (Zr) iFDPs with pontic, 98.9% (95%CI: 96.8-99.6%) for monolithic or micro-veneered zirconia iFDPs with pontic, and 97.0% (95%CI: 84.8-99.9%) for lithium disilicate iFDPs with pontics. The survival rates for different material combination showed no statistically significant differences. Veneered restorations, overall, showed significantly (p < .01) higher ceramic fracture and chipping rates compared with monolithic restorations. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in survival rates (98.3% [95%CI: 95.6-99.3%] vs. 99.1% [95%CI: 97.6-99.7%]) and overall complication rates between PFM iFDPs with pontic and PFM iS Cs.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data identified by this systematic review, PFM, veneered Zr, and monolithic Zr iFDPs with pontic and iS Cs showed similarly high short-term survival rates in the posterior area. Veneered restorations exhibit ceramic chipping more often than monolithic restorations, with the highest fracture rate reported for veneered Zr iFDPs.
Topics: Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Porcelain; Ceramics; Zirconium; Crowns; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
PubMed: 37750526
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14103 -
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 Dental Research Mar 2012The purpose of this study was to examine the most frequently used criteria to define treatment success in implant dentistry. An electronic MEDLINE/PubMED search was... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this study was to examine the most frequently used criteria to define treatment success in implant dentistry. An electronic MEDLINE/PubMED search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective studies reporting on outcomes of implant dentistry. Only studies conducted with roughened surface implants and at least five-year follow-up were included. Data were analyzed for success at the implant level, peri-implant soft tissue, prosthetics, and patient satisfaction. Most frequently reported criteria for success at the implant level were mobility, pain, radiolucency, and peri-implant bone loss (> 1.5 mm), and for success at the peri-implant soft-tissue level, suppuration, and bleeding. The criteria for success at the prosthetic level were the occurrence of technical complications/prosthetic maintenance, adequate function, and esthetics during the five-year period. The criteria at patient satisfaction level were discomfort and paresthesia, satisfaction with appearance, and ability to chew/taste. Success in implant dentistry should ideally evaluate a long-term primary outcome of an implant-prosthetic complex as a whole.
Topics: Benchmarking; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Osseointegration; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 22157097
DOI: 10.1177/0022034511431252 -
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 -
Implant Dentistry Dec 2016Occlusal overload may cause implant biomechanical failures, marginal bone loss, or even complete loss of osseointegration. Thus, it is important for clinicians to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Occlusal overload may cause implant biomechanical failures, marginal bone loss, or even complete loss of osseointegration. Thus, it is important for clinicians to understand the role of occlusion in implant long-term stability. This systematic review updates the understanding of occlusion on dental implants, the impact on the surrounding peri-implant tissues, and the effects of occlusal overload on implants. Additionally, recommendations of occlusal scheme for implant prostheses and designs were formulated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers completed a literature search using the PubMed database and a manual search of relevant journals. Relevant articles from January 1950 to September 20, 2015 published in the English language were considered.
RESULTS
Recommendations for implant occlusion are lacking in the literature. Despite this, implant occlusion should be carefully addressed.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations for occlusal schemes for single implants or fixed partial denture supported by implants include a mutually protected occlusion with anterior guidance and evenly distributed contacts with wide freedom in centric relation. Suggestions to reduce occlusal overload include reducing cantilevers, increasing the number of implants, increasing contact points, monitoring for parafunctional habits, narrowing the occlusal table, decreasing cuspal inclines, and using progressive loading in patients with poor bone quality. Protecting the implant and surrounding peri-implant bone requires an understanding of how occlusion plays a role in influencing long-term implant stability.
Topics: Bite Force; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Occlusion; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Humans
PubMed: 27749518
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000488 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2014To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression.
RESULTS
From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS
Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.
Topics: Bone Screws; Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Abutments; Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans
PubMed: 24660192
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols...
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).
CONCLUSIONS
Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.
Topics: Humans; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 30328194
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13276 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022Address oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction rehabilitated by the all-on-four concept as the primary outcome. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Address oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction rehabilitated by the all-on-four concept as the primary outcome.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria (PRISMA). The PICO question was used to address the following specific question: "What is the level of oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction in edentulous patients and with atrophic jaws who received dental implants for full-arch implant-supported restorations following the all-on-four in the mandible or maxilla?"
RESULTS
Eleven studies including 693 patients aged 55 to 71 years were selected. The shortest follow-up period was 3 months and the longest, 7 years. Regarding the OHRQoL assessment method and patient satisfaction, the oral health impact profile (OHIP) and the visual analog scale (VAS) were the most used.
CONCLUSION
OHRQoL and satisfaction in patients whose rehabilitation was based on the all-on-four concept were high. However, the current evidence is still limited by the quality of the available studies, making long-term randomized studies necessary to establish the real effectiveness of this surgical-prosthetic approach.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Carefully analyze the aspects related to satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life of rehabilitated patients with implant-supported total prostheses made according to the all-on-four concept, aiming to achieve success through procedures with greater predictability and less complexity, as these are directly associated with recovery oral health of edentulous individuals with less morbidity and minimized costs.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34647147
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04213-y -
The International Journal of...To synthesize evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) on different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations.
PURPOSE
To synthesize evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) on different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A protocol-oriented search was established to address the PICO question: What is the current evidence regarding rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with different implant-supported prostheses in terms of implant and prosthesis survival? The primary outcomes were implant and prosthesis survival rates evaluated from SRs of clinical studies including adult patients with complete edentulism of the maxilla and comparing different implant-supported rehabilitation strategies. Methodologic quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool.
RESULTS
The final selection process led to the inclusion of 36 SRs that were grouped as: (1) addressing maxillae with sufficient bone to place implants; (2) addressing maxillae with insufficient bone to place implants; and (3) comparing different types of prosthesis, number of implants, patient-reported outcomes, and economic evaluations. The literature describes four or more implants as suitable for full-arch fixed prostheses and implant-supported overdentures; in both cases, the overall survival rate is > 95%. Mini-implants present very high short-term failure rates (> 30%). Poor description of technical complications, adjustments, and maintenance and corresponding costs precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis.
CONCLUSION
No implant-supported rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla (fixed or removable) should be supported on fewer than four implants. A one-piece full-arch fixed dental prosthesis can be supported by a minimum of two anterior axial plus two posterior distally tilted implants or by six to eight axial implants symmetrically distributed through the posterior and anterior regions of the arch. Four to six implants is the advised number to support an overdenture. The use of mini-implants in the maxilla is inadvisable.
Topics: Adult; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Mouth, Edentulous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33571327
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7162