Implant-Supported Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Using Coded Healing Abutments and Fabricated Using a Digital Workflow: A 1-Year Prospective Case Series Study

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 (iSp 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 iSp 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 iSp Cs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data identified by this systematic review, PFM, veneered Zr, and monolithic Zr iFDPs with pontic and iSp 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.

Clinical outcomes of implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine the survival rates of implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search for articles in the English language literature published from January 1, 2001 to September 17, 2021 was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL search engines. After applying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the definitive list of selected articles was used for calculating the interval survival rate (ISR) and cumulative survival rate (CSR). Restoration failure in this study was defined as the fracture or compromise of any part of the ceramic restoration that required the removal or remake of the implant-supported restoration.

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 457 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 14 clinical studies that addressed the clinical outcomes of implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns and fixed partial dentures. Of these, 3 were randomized controlled trials, 5 were prospective studies, and 6 were retrospective studies. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 5 years. Of the 644 implant-supported monolithic zirconia restorations computed in this systematic review, there was only 1 reported failure of the monolithic zirconia restorative material over a follow-up period of up to 5 years, for a cumulative survival rate of 99.84%. At the maximum follow-up interval of 5 years, the cumulative survival rate for monolithic zirconia single crowns was 100% and the cumulative survival rate for monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures was 99.60%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-supported monolithic zirconia single crowns and fixed partial dentures have excellent short-term (<5 years) survival rates but the evidence for medium-term survival (>5 years) and beyond is lacking.

Survival and prosthetic complications of monolithic ceramic implant-supported single crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations have been used to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients. However, knowledge of the survival and prosthetic complications of single crowns (SCs) and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of monolithic ceramic implant-supported SCs and FPDs in terms of survival and prosthetic complication rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The systematic review was registered on the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017078568). Five electronic databases were independently searched by 2 authors for articles published until May 2022. In addition, a hand search was performed in the nonpeer-reviewed literature, specific journals, and reference lists of included articles. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed by using the R program. The risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. A total of 1298 monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations (1116 SCs and 182 FPDs) were evaluated in 1193 participants, with a median observation time of 24 months (range: 12 to 72 months). Meta-analysis indicated the proportion of failures and prosthetic complication rates of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1% to 4%) for SCs. No difference was observed for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate SCs. In the FPDs, only monolithic zirconia was considered, with 1 failure reported totaling the proportion of failures of 0% (0% to 1%) and complication rates of 4% (0% to 12%). The most complications reported for both types of restorations were screw loosening, debonding, and minor chipping and were considered repairable. The included studies showed a low risk of bias and good quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of monolithic ceramic implant-supported SCs, independent of ceramic material, and monolithic zirconia implant-supported FPDs should be considered an effective and safe treatment option because of favorable short-term survival and low prosthetic complications. However, additional well-conducted studies with a longer-term follow-up and direct comparison between veneered restorations are recommended to reassess clinical performance.

Three-unit fixed dental prostheses supported by either two abutment implants or two abutment teeth: A comparative retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

In general, similar restorative constructions are made on natural teeth and on dental implants. The assumption is made that implants and their restoration perform the same as natural roots and their prosthetic restoration. Evaluating cohorts of three-unit bridges on teeth and on implants, this retrospective clinical study aimed to compare implants and teeth as supporting units, including the reconstructions, in terms of survival, success, clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From an 8-year period, all patients treated with a posterior three-unit fixed reconstruction on either implants or teeth, with a follow-up of at least 2 years, were identified. For each implant-supported reconstruction, a comparable tooth-supported reconstruction was selected, based on the length of follow-up, the material of the reconstruction, and the location in either the maxilla or mandible.

RESULTS

For the Implant-group, 24 patients could be matched with 24 best matching patients with tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). Supporting implants and implant-supported reconstructions were all in function with a mean follow-up of 52 ± 23 months. Two tooth-supported reconstructions had been replaced (91.7% survival) (mean follow-up: 52 ± 19 months). Radiographic bone levels and soft tissue conditions were favorable in both groups with minor differences. There was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction. The modified USPHS-score revealed an 87.5% overall success in the Implant-group and 91.7% in the Tooth-group.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-supported three-unit FDPs are a reliable treatment option with survival and success rates not significantly different from the results of tooth-supported three-unit FDPs.

A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO2 Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows

This double-blind randomized controlled trial with a crossover design analyzed the technical and clinical performance of three-unit monolithic ZrO₂ implant-fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs), prepared using two complete digital workflows (Test-1, Test-2) and one mixed analog–digital workflow (Control). Each of the 20 study patients received three iFDPs, resulting in 60 restorations for analysis. The quality of the restorations was assessed by analyzing laboratory cross-mounting and calculating the chairside adjustment time required during fitting. All iFDPs could be produced successfully with all three workflows. The highest cross-mounting success rate was observed for the original pairing iFDP/model of the Control group. Overall, 60% of iFDPs prepared with Test-1 workflow did not require chairside adjustment compared with 50% for Test-2 and 30% for Controls. The mean total chairside adjustment time, as the sum of interproximal, pontic, and occlusal corrections was 2.59 ± 2.51 min (Control), 2.88 ± 2.86 min (Test-1), and 3.87 ± 3.02 min (Test-2). All tested workflows were feasible for treatment with iFDPs in posterior sites on a soft tissue level type implant system. For clinical routine, it has to be considered that chairside adjustments may be necessary, at least in every second patient, independent on the workflow used.