Implant-supported Single Crowns Research Articles

Patient-reported outcome measures focusing on the esthetics of implant-compared to tooth-supported single crowns-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To report a summary of published patient-reported esthetic outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) compared with those of tooth-supported SCs. Cochrane, Medline (PubMed), and EMBASE database search was performed by three reviewers on reports with patient-reported esthetic outcomes of tooth- and implant-supported SCs. Clinical studies with at least 12 months of mean follow-up period and a minimum of 10 patients, and English, French, or German reports were included. To compare the subgroups, for aggregate-level data, random-effects meta-regression was used. Two thousand fifteen titles were identified (initial search) and screened independently concluding 53 full-text articles to include in data extraction. Twenty-two studies with 29 study cohorts were included. Patients were satisfied with the esthetics of implant- and tooth- supported crowns Mean visual analogue scale (VAS) value from the PROMs data of 1270 implant-supported SCs evaluated by 1051 patients was 89.6% (80.0%-94.1%). The mean VAS value of patients (n=201), who evaluated the esthetic outcome of 486 tooth-supported SCs was 94.4% (92.3%-96.0%). VAS scores of patients regarding their perception of esthetics did not show any difference among different crown materials or type of implant used. The patients' perception of esthetics focusing on SC had a tendency to be higher when the crowns were supported by teeth, however, no statistical difference was found when compared with implant-supported crowns (p=0.067). Patient perception of esthetics in SCs was not affected by the type of support, crown material, implant, and presence of provisional crown for both implant- and tooth-supported SCs. Despite that patient's expectations are increasing overall Patients are satisfied with with esthetic outcome of implant- and tooth-supported crowns.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations. Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05). In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures. Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Implant-Supported Single Crowns with Titanium or Zirconia Abutments: A Retrospective Up-to-5-year Follow-up Study.

To compare the clinical outcomes of single implants with titanium (Ti) or zirconia (Zr) abutments after up to 5 years in function. This study was a retrospective analysis on single implants with screw-retained abutments (Zr or Ti) covered with porcelain veneer placed between 2011 and 2013 at one referral specialist clinic. Clinical data from patient records were collected from 132 patients and 174 implants. Technical complications such as fractures, chipping, and abutment screw loosening were registered. Radiographs were analyzed comparing both annual bone loss and accumulated bone loss at 5 years. In 57 patients with 85 implants, the values of accumulated bone loss at 5 years were compared to baseline. Technical complications occurred in 16 (9%) of the implants, most often during the first year. The following complications were found: fracture of the abutment (n = 1); loosening of the abutment screws (n = 5); and chipping of the porcelain veneer (n = 11). Ti abutments had more complications than Zr abutments (79%). Of all the implants, 45% had an annual bone loss ranging between 0.05 and 2.15 mm, and 59% had an accumulated bone loss at 5 years ranging between 0.05 and 4.25 mm. Zr abutments had a statistically significantly higher amount of yearly and accumulated bone loss at 5 years. Abutment material affected marginal bone loss. The Zr group displayed statistically more bone loss both yearly and after 5 years compared to the Ti group. Technical complications were not affected by abutment material but were affected by age of the patient.

Zirconia Crowns and FDPs with Feather-Edge Margins on Conical Implant Abutments-Up-To-5-year Clinical Retrospective Study.

To retrospectively evaluate the survival rate and technical and biologic complications of feather-edge zirconia and metal-ceramic implant restorations cemented on conical titanium abutments. Patients rehabilitated with implant-supported single crowns or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were divided into four groups: ZR-TL = tissue-level implant with a convergent collar and zirconia restoration; ZR-BL = bone-level implant and zirconia restoration; MC-TL = tissue-level implant with a convergent collar and metal-ceramic restoration; MC-BL = bone-level implant and metal-ceramic restoration. All of the restorations were cemented onto conical titanium abutments and had feather-edge margins, following the biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT). Crown-level survival rates, technical and biologic complications, and bone resorption were registered. Chi-square test was performed to analyze all evaluated parameters among the groups. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was performed to analyze changes in bone level. A total of 85 patients (133 implants, 66 single crowns, and 28 FDPs) were included in the present study with a mean follow-up time of 4.98 years. The overall survival rate was 98.2% for zirconia and 97.5% for metal-ceramic restorations at the crown level. No significant differences were found between the zirconia (ZR-BL and ZR-TL) and the metal-ceramic (MC-BL and MC-TL) groups for technical complications (P > .05). Bone resorption was 0.33 (0.37) mm in MC-TL; 0.61 (0.52) mm in MC-BL; 0.39 (0.51) mm in ZR-TL; and 0.77 (0.64) mm in ZR-BL, showing significantly greater bone loss in bone-level implants (P = .011). Zirconia implant restorations with feather-edge margins seem to be a viable alternative in cases of both tissue-level and bone-level implants.

Occlusion on a Single Implant-Supported Crown: Any differences?

Dental implants react biomechanically to the occlusal forces placed on them, in a different fashion to teeth, which can make them prone to overloading. This can lead to a range of mechanical problems, including screw loosening, ceramic chipping, and fracture of components, but it can also be associated with biological complications such as later peri-implantitis. Appropriate occlusal loading is essential to maintain long-term stability of implant-retained restorations. Clinicians must be aware that, to varying extents, complications do occur with single implant-retained crowns. Dental implants are not a panacea; it is unwise to describe implants as being either perfect or permanent because they are neither. Patients need to understand, well in advance of having implant-based treatment, that the placement of titanium in their jaw(s) will not stop their parafunctional habits, such as clenching or bruxism. Insertion of titanium screws of various types and roughness will certainly not alter their susceptibility to their own plaque-induced inflammatory periodontal disease which is often manifested as peri-mucositis, or later as peri-implantitis in susceptible patients. Based on the available data, this paper provides recommendations to optimise clinical outcomes for single implant-supported crowns. When designing implants, the focus should be on achieving axial forces during chewing. It is wise to minimise horizontal and non-axial loads to avoid potential damage to ceramic or other prosthetic components, and to minimise the risks of bone resorption occurring around the implants themselves at a later stage. Occlusal relationships of implant-retained restorations should be carefully evaluated on a regular basis. Accurate occlusal records of the starting point are extremely helpful in assessing the ongoing status of any restorations.

Influence of interproximal peri-implant tissue and prosthesis contours on food impaction, tissue health and patients' quality of life.

To investigate tissue features and interproximal contour of posterior implant-supported single crowns (ISSC), which correlate with food impaction. 2) To evaluate the influence of food impaction on the health of the adjacent peri-implant tissue and patients' oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Patients with posterior ISSC under maintenance between July 2019 and July 2020 were recruited. OHRQoL of patients who self-reported food impaction between ISSC and teeth was evaluated by Oral Impacts on Daily Performance questionnaire and reported at patient level. Interproximal prosthesis contours and periodontal/peri-implant tissue conditions were assessed by clinical and radiographic examination. Differences between food impaction (FI) and non-food impaction (NFI) sites were analysed. Totally, 178 patients (286 ISSC and 410 interproximal spaces) were included. Among 119 patients who self-reported food impaction, 84 (70.6%) reported their OHRQoL to be affected with minor-to-severe intensity. The most commonly affected daily performance was the ability to clean the teeth. Plaque accumulation at ISSC, deeper probing depth, complete interdental papilla fill, loose contact, longer contact length, lower contact point level, closer distance between ISSC and tooth, lesser embrasure surface area, tissue-level implant and cement-retained restoration were found significantly more in the FI group than the NFI group (p < .05). Interproximal features of the implant prosthesis were associated with food impaction between the ISSC and the adjacent tooth, which might affect periodontal and/or peri-implant tissue health conditions. Patients' OHRQoL was commonly affected by food impaction, but the intensity was low.

Economic Evaluation Of Single-Tooth Replacement Using Fixed Dental Prosthesis Or Implant-Supported Single Crowns

Objectives: Dentists and patients are frequently confronted by a difficult treatment decision: should a missing tooth be replaced with a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) or an implant- supported single crown (ISC)? Material and Methods: Forty seven ..

Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

ObjectivesTo compare screw‐retained and cemented all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5‐year observation period.Materials and methodsIn 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.ResultsDuring 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).ConclusionsAll‐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.

A retrospective study of 12,538 internal conical connection implants focused on the long-term integrity of implant-abutment complexes.

To evaluate the long-term integrity of implant-abutment complexes in implant systems with two internal conical angles. 12,538 bone-level implants of two systems placed between January 2012 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Cumulative abutment/implant fracture rates in systems with larger (LA, 7.5°) and smaller (SA, 5.7°) internal conical angles were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between groups. The association between implant systems and jammed abutment retrievability was evaluated by multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression modeling. For LA, the 8-year cumulative incident rate was 0.10% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0-0.24%) for implant fracture and 0.26% (95% CI: 0.11%-0.41%) for abutment fracture, demonstrating a significant difference in gender (p=.03), implant diameter (p=.01), jaw (p=.006), and antagonist tooth (p<.001). For SA, the 8-year cumulative incident rate was 0.38% (95% CI: 0-0.79%) for implant fracture and 2.62% (95% CI: 0.05%-5.13%) for abutment fracture, which was influenced by implant diameter (p<.001) and site (p=.03). The cumulative implant/abutment fracture rate was lower for LA implants, particularly for LA implant-supported single crowns (SCs) (p<.05). The abutment-retrieval success rate was 92.9% for LA and 57.1% for SA (p=.055). LA implants exhibited a lower incidence of fracture in abutment-implant complexes and a relatively higher retrievability success rate for jammed abutments.

Retention Forces of Implant-Supported Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prostheses after Cementation: An In-Vitro Study

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate three different cements for their suitability to provide semi-permanent cementation, and to compare the retention forces of implant-supported single crowns (SC) and three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) luted with these cements. Twenty-four methacrylate models were supplied with three implants/abutments each to simulate the condition of SCs/FDPs. Cobalt-chromium frameworks were fabricated, sandblasted (Al2O3/50 µm/0.2 MPa) then cemented with glass-ionomer (KTC), polycarboxylate (DUR) or self-adhesive resin cement (RXU). Specimens were stored in a saline-solution (NaCl/37 °C/24 h) or subjected to thermocycling. A universal testing machine and a pull-off device were used to remove the copings. The multi-factor ANOVA showed that the retention force differed significantly among all cements for the SCs after NaCl storage (p &lt; 0.05). Mean retention forces (in Newtons) after NaCl storage were (SCs/FDPs): KTC 170/352, DUR 409/406, RXU 265/426, and after thermocycling (SCs/FDPs): KTC 156/262, DUR 306/380, RXU 494/508. FDPs showed higher retention values in comparison to SCs. For SCs, artificial aging with thermocycling resulted in a significant retention increase for RXU, whereas the retention of KTC and DUR was decreased. Glass ionomer can be used as a semi-permanent cement for both SCs and FDPs. Polycarboxylate cement is considered semi-permanent after one year of aging.

Dimensional changes of CAD/CAM polymer crowns after water aging – An in vitro experiment

Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) polymers can potentially replace traditional materials used for manufacturing indirect restorations. In 2012, Lava Ultimate (LU) was introduced as a highly suitable material for implant-supported single crowns. Three years after its introduction, the manufacturer issued a change in indication for the material, implying that they no longer considered the material to be suitable for crown indications due to debonding issues. A clinical trial with implant-borne Lava Ultimate crowns bonded to zirconia abutments revealed that 80 percent of the LU crowns showed debonding from the abutment within one year, whereas no debonding occurred when an alternative full-ceramic restoration material was used. These results suggest that the material itself had been the cause of the debonding. However, the exact reason for the debonding remained unclear. Water uptake in resin methacrylates like LU is known to cause dimensional changes resulting in mechanical stress on the RelyX Ultimate (RU) cement. The purpose of this study is to quantify the dimensional changes in LU caused by water uptake and relate these dimensional changes to the failure of the RU cement.Twenty-five identical LU-crowns were divided into three groups. 10 LU-crowns with abutment and 10 crowns without abutments were stored in water for 23 days and were only removed for measurement. Five crowns served as a control to calibrate the measurements. The internal diameter was measured eight times with a TS 460 Heidenhain touch probe. For visualization purposes, one crown was also 3D scanned before and after water treatment.The results showed that after 23 days in water the mean increase in diameter for the groups with and without abutment was 36.6 μm (SD = 35,1) and 36.7 μm (SD = 26,5) respectively. Mixed effects modelling indicated no significant between-group differences at any time point.Exposure of LU to water results in dimensional changes causing mechanical stress on the crown-abutment complex. It can be estimated that RU cement fails after an expansion of more than 4 μm. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that the dimensional changes induced by water uptake can cause debonding issues. As more CAD/CAM polymers for restorative purposes are expected to be developed, the results of this study should stimulate manufacturers to quantify their products’ dimensional changes in a wet environment before market release.

Metal ceramic restorations for full mouth rehabilitation in amelogenesis imperfecta

Amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) is a clinical condition of natural teeth in which enamel fails to mature due to which the patient faces sensitivity, attrition and poor aesthetics. The condition is genetically inherited and requires multidisciplinary treatment planning to achieve effective success. Treatment ranges from individual crowns to fixed partial dentures or implant-supported single crowns and is related to multiple factors like age and condition of remaining natural teeth. The use of metal and ceramic restorations in such cases requires knowledge and understanding of basic material science, which helps to improve the efficiency of the treatment. This article presents a case of a young adult male patient who presented with AI with a chief complaint of poor esthetics. Maxillary and mandibular teeth had undergone attrition with concomitant loss of anterior guidance. The occlusion was successfully established after restoring anterior guidance which was determined by the use of temporary crowns. Porcelain fused to metal restorations was given and the patient was put on a long-term follow-up. The patient was highly satisfied with the outcome of the rehabilitation.

EAO Position Paper: Material Selection for Implant-Supported Restorations

In recent years, numerous new dental materials have been introduced as alternatives to metal-ceramics for restorations on teeth and implants. This position paper presents the current evidence and respective clinical recommendations of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), one of the scientific partners of the International Journal of Prosthodontics, on material selection for single crowns (SCs) and multiple-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Metal-ceramic restorations can be utilized in most clinical indications and are preferred to ceramic restorations in incidences such as long clinical implant crowns; cantilever implant restorations where one implant is supporting two crowns; implant-supported FDPs with extension units extending more than 7 to 8 mm (premolar size); implant-supported FDPs with more than two pontics; and implant-supported FDPs with small connector diameters due to limited intraocclusal space. Veneered or monolithic zirconia-ceramic and veneered or monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs are indicated for most SC cases in both the anterior and posterior areas. Today, implant-supported zirconia-ceramic FDPs that are conventionally veneered cannot be considered the material of first priority due to the pronounced risk for fracture of the framework and catastrophic fracture of the veneering material. Monolithic zirconia FDPs are a promising alternative to veneered implant-supported zirconia-ceramic FDPs. The mechanical stability of the translucent and shaded zirconia differs significantly between the grades of translucency. This must always be considered when clinical indications are recommended. As this specific area of prosthodontics is evolving fast, numerous studies evaluating different material options in implant prosthodontics are currently performed worldwide, and future consensus meetings will refine the present recommendations. The EAO will therefore regularly publish updated position papers on relevant topics.

Esthetic evaluation of single implant-supported prostheses: Comparative analysis of the reliability of the esthetic indices.

To carry out a detailed analysis of four indices proposed for the esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns in the anterior maxillary sector. Four esthetic indices were selected: the Pink and white esthetic score, the Copenhagen Index Score, the peri-implant and crown index (PICI), and the implant restoration esthetic index (IREI). The examiners were 15 expert subjects and 30 nonexpert ones. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess reproducibility. The validity and the correlation of the esthetic indices results with the perception of nonexpert subjects were evaluated using the Pearson's correlation. For inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, all the esthetic indices had an intraclass correlation coefficient value>0.8. As for validity, the highest correlation values were found for the PICI and for the IREI. The values of correlation with the perception of nonexpert subjects did not exceed 0.3 for all esthetic indices. All esthetic indices evaluated presented good intra- and inter-rater reproducibility. Validity was considered satisfactory only for the PICI and the IREI. The correlation with the perception of nonexpert subjects showed a weak correlation with all the indices considered. An approved esthetic indice with proven reproducibility and validity could provide a better objective overview of one's own esthetic results in the daily practice. It could also help to record the results over time to analyze the stability of the treatment procedure. The esthetic results of the different surgical and prosthetic protocols can also be compared, which facilitates the analysis of the indications relevance and clinical effects. However, low reproducibility according to the specialty and the practitioner's level of expertise was observed. A heterogeneity of results was also noted when compared with those of nonexpert subjects.

Clinical applicational comparison of digital impression and silicon rubber impression technique in posterior implant-supported single crown restoration

Objective: To investigate the clinical effect and satisfaction of partially edentulous patients restored with posterior implant-supported single crown by digital impression technique and traditional silicon rubber impression, in order to provide clinical reference. Methods: Sixty-four partially edentulous patients who visited the Department of Prosthodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University between March 2018 and January 2021 were enrolled. There were 31 male and 33 female, and the age of the group of patients was (49.3±13.3) years. The 113 implants placed in this group of patients were divided into digital impression group (n=70) and silicone rubber impression group (n=43) according to different impression techniques, and were restored with screw-retained full zirconia single crown, and the patients were followed up for 3-36 months after treatment. The implant survival rate, upper prosthesis, peri-implant soft tissue status, marginal bone loss and patients satisfaction were recorded to evaluate the clinical effects of two impression techniques in posterior implant-supported single crown. Results: In sixty-four patients, digital impression accounted for 62% (40/64), and silicon rubber impression accounted for 38% (24/64), the survival rate of 113 implants was 100% (113/113). The prevalence of interproximal contact loss, food impaction and mechanical complication of the upper full zirconia single crown restorations were 22.7% (41/181), 8.0% (9/113) and 2.7% (3/113) separately. All the mechanical complications were abutment screw loosening. All patients maintained good oral hygiene status, the incidences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis were 0.9% (1/113) and 4.4% (5/113) respectively. The marginal bone loss was (0.24±0.11) mm. The median of satisfaction visual analogue scale score in patients was 9-10, but no statistically significant differences of all the above results were observed between the two impression techniques (P>0.05). Conclusions: The clinical effect of partially edentulous patients restored with posterior implant-supported single crown using two different impression techniques is good and the satisfaction of patients is high, but the long-term clinical effect remains to be further observed.

Mechanical Stability of Screw-Retained Monolithic and Bi-layer Posterior Hybrid Abutment Crowns after Thermomechanical Loading: An In Vitro Study.

To evaluate the failure-load and survival-rate of screw-retained monolithic and bi-layered crowns bonded to titanium-bases before and after mouth-motion fatigue, 72 titanium-implants (SICvantage-max, SIC-invent-AG) were restored with three groups (n = 24) of screw-retained CAD/CAM implant-supported-single-crowns (ISSC) bonded to titanium-bases: porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM-control), porcelain-fused-to-zirconia (PFZ-test) and monolithic LDS (LDS-test). Half of the specimens (n = 12/group) were subjected to fatigue in a chewing-simulator (1.2 million cycles, 198 N, 1.67 Hz, thermocycling 5–55 °C). All samples were exposed to single-load-to-failure without (PFM0, PFZ0, LDS0) or with fatigue (PFM1, PFZ1, LDS1). Comparisons were statistically analyzed with t-tests and regression-models and corrected for multiple-testing using the Student–Neuman–Keuls method. All PFM and LDS crowns survived fatigue exposure, whereas 16.7% of PFZ showed chipping failures. The mean failure-loads (±SD) were: PFM0: 2633 ± 389 N, PFM1: 2349 ± 578 N, PFZ0: 2152 ± 572 N, PFZ1: 1686 ± 691 N, LDS0: 2981 ± 798 N, LDS1: 2722 ± 497 N. Fatigue did not influence load to failure of any group. PFZ ISSC showed significantly lower failure-loads than monolithic-LDS regardless of artificial aging (p < 0.05). PFM ISSC showed significantly higher failure loads after fatigue than PFZ (p = 0.032). All ISSC failed in a range above physiological chewing forces. Premature chipping fractures might occur in PFZ ISSC. Monolithic-LDS ISSC showed high reliability as an all-ceramic material for screw-retained posterior hybrid-abutment-crowns.

Клинико-рентгенологическая оценка состояния имплантатов с несъемными конструкциями в динамике за 20 лет

The statistically significant long-term results of the implant survival and the effectiveness of prostheses are inadequately represented in scientific literature. The study was aimed to assess the effectiveness of prosthetics with fixed structures on the intraosseous dental implants for the replacement of partially absent dentition in the dynamics of the 20-year follow-up. A total of 671 patients with partially missing teeth were examined at the Clinical Center of Dentistry of the FMBA of Russia, who were fitted with 1,700 intraosseous titanium dental implants with the terms from the moment of completion of prosthetics on implants of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. The criteria for clinical and radiological evaluation of the implant condition were as follows: no complications affecting the condition of periimplant tissues (normal), mucositis, periimplantitis with bone resorption at 1/3 or 1/2 of the implant height, implant removal. Based on 20 years of experience, prosthetics with fixed structures on implants is highly effective in replacing the partial defects of dentition. In total, 62.2% of implants remain functional for 20 years. The average life of implant-supported fixed prostheses is 15 years for bridges, and 20 years for single and combined implant-supported crowns. The most effective are single implant-supported crowns, and the least effective are prostheses supported by implants and teeth. The significantly preserved implant-supported prostheses make it possible to support the concept of the long-term implant installation with respect to the implant-supported non-removable prostheses. The view is thus confirmed that the effectiveness of the implant-supported prosthetics is reduced with the inclusion of teeth in the bridge support, along with implants.

Clinical Oral Implants ResearchVolume 32, Issue 12 p. 1507-1507 CORRIGENDUMFree Access This article corrects the following: 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 Bjarni Elvar Pjetursson, Irena Sailer, Andrey Latyshev, Kerstin Rabel, Ralf-Joachim Kohal, Duygu Karasan, Volume 32Issue S21Clinical Oral Implants Research pages: 254-288 First Published online: October 12, 2021 First published: 08 December 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13877AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat In Pjetursson et al. (2021), the acknowledgement to Dr. Malin Strasding and Dr. Nicola A. Valente contributions was missing in the published version. It should be inserted as the 2nd sentence in the Acknowledgments section and it should read as follows: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This systematic review was performed in the context of the EAO Consensus Conference 2021. The contributions of Dr. Malin Strasding and Dr. Nicola A. Valente to the data extraction for this review are highly acknowledged. The authors are grateful to Professor Marcel Zwahlen, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland, for his help to prepare the statistical analysis. REFERENCE Pjetursson, B. E., Sailer, I., Latyshev, A., Rabel, K., Kohal, R.-J., & Karasan, D. (2021). 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. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 32(Suppl. 21), 254– 288. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13863Wiley Online LibraryPubMedGoogle Scholar Volume32, Issue12December 2021Pages 1507-1507 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Impact of cement type and abutment height on pull-off force of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns on titanium implant stock abutments: an in vitro study

BackgroundPull-off forces of cement-retained zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in implant-supported single crowns on stock titanium abutments with respect to abutment height and implant cement were evaluated and compared.MethodsPull-off force of ZLS crowns on stock titanium abutments was evaluated concerning dental cement and abutment height. A total sample size of 64 stock abutments with heights of 3 mm (n = 32) and 5 mm (n = 32) was used. The ZLS crowns were cemented with four different types of cement (one temporary, two semi-permanent, and one permanent). After cementation, water storage, and thermocycling each sample was subjected to a pull-off test using a universal testing machine.ResultsThe temporary cement showed the least pull-off force regardless of abutment height (3/5 mm: means 6 N/23 N), followed by the semi-permanent methacrylate-infiltrated zinc oxide cement (28 N/55 N), the semi-permanent methacrylate-based cement (103 N/163 N), and the permanent resin composite cement (238 N/820 N). Results of all types of cement differed statistically significantly from each other (p ≤ .012). The type of implant cement has an impact on the pull-off force of ZLS crowns and titanium abutments.ConclusionsPermanent cements present higher retention than semi-permanent ones, and temporary cements present the lowest values. The abutment height had a subordinate impact.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing digital and conventional workflows for treatment with posterior single-unit implant restorations: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to analyze patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of prosthetic therapy with monolithic implant crowns in completely digital workflows (test) with intraoral optical scanning (IOS) and conventional workflows (control) with conventional impressions. Secondary, an objective evaluation of the final implant restorations was performed using the Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). Materials and MethodsForty patients who required an implant-supported single crown on posterior regions were randomly divided into test (n = 20) and control (n = 20) groups for impression taking. Each group was then equally separated into two subgroups according to the restorative material used: lithium disilicate (LS2, N!CE®, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) or polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (PICN, Enamic®, Vita, Bad Säckingen, Germany). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using PROM questionnaires with visual analog scales (VAS) after impression-taking and 1 week after prosthetic delivery. Patient satisfaction with the impression technique was assessed in six domains: length, comfort, anxiety, taste, nausea, and pain, whereas patient satisfaction with the final restoration was assessed in four domains: overall treatment outcome, functionality, esthetics, and cleanability. In addition, the final implant restorations were objectively assessed by an independent prosthodontist using the FIPS. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the defined outcomes. Statistical analysis was completed with a level of significance set at α=0.05. ResultsPROMs focusing on the impression technique demonstrated higher levels of patient satisfaction for IOS compared to conventional impressions, especially in terms of “taste irritation” (p = 0.036); whereas no significant differences were found between both restorative CAD/CAM-materials. Mean FIPS values demonstrated similar results among subgroups. ConclusionsWithin the limitation of this study, both completely digital and conventional protocols provided great levels of patient satisfaction in implant rehabilitation of single-tooth gaps in posterior sites with monolithic implant crowns. The restorative material, LS2 versus PICN, does not impact patient satisfaction with their treatment. However, a long-term follow up is needed to draw more specific conclusions on patient satisfaction with the restorations.