A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions

OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the influence of implant-abutment connection and abutment material on the outcome of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression, and comparisons were made with multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS The search provided 1511 titles and 177 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 147 articles resulting in 60 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of 97.6% for SCs and 97.0% for FDPs supported by implants with internal implant-abutment connection and 95.7% for SCs and 95.8% for FDPs supported by implants with external connection. The 5-year abutment failure rate ranged from 0.7% to 2.8% for different connections with no differences between the types of connections. The total number of complications was similar between the two connections, yet, at external connections, abutment or occlusal screw loosening was more predominant. Ceramic abutments, both internally and externally connected, demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of abutment fractures compared with metal abutments. CONCLUSION For implant-supported SCs, both metal and ceramic abutments with internal and external connections exhibited high survival rates. Moreover, implant-supported FDPs with metal abutments with internal and external connections for also showed high survival rates

13-year follow-up of a randomized controlled study on zirconia and titanium abutments

OBJECTIVES: To assess survival rates and compare technical, biological, and esthetic outcomes of customized zirconia and titanium abutments at 13 years post loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Initially, 22 patients with 40 implants in posterior regions were included. The sites were randomly assigned to 20 customized zirconia abutments with cemented all ceramic crowns (ACC) and 20 customized titanium abutments with cemented metal ceramic crowns (MCC). At a mean follow-up of 13.4 years, patients were examined and implants/restorations assessed for survival and technical complications, as well as biological and esthetic outcomes (pocket probing depth [PPD], bleeding on probing [BOP], plaque control record [PCR], bone level [BL], papilla index [PAP], mucosal thickness, and recession (distance of the margo mucosae [MM]/margo gingivae MG)). Descriptive analyses were performed for all outcome measures. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with 21 abutments (13 zirconia, 8 titanium) were examined at 13 years. The drop-out rate was 25% (patient level). The technical survival rate of the abutments was 100%. The survival rate on the restorative level (crowns) was 100%. The assessed biological outcomes (PPD, PCR, BOP, BL) and esthetic outcomes (MG, PAP) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single implant-borne restorations rendered a high survival rate and minimal differences in terms of technical, biological, and esthetic outcomes at 13 years of follow-up

Stock Versus CAD/CAM Customized Zirconia Implant Abutments - Clinical and Patient-Based Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BackgroundSingle-tooth replacement often requires a prefabricated dental implant and a customized crown. The benefits of individualization of the abutment remain unclear.PurposeThis randomized controlled clinical trial aims to study potential benefits of individualization of zirconia implant abutments with respect to preservation of marginal bone level and several clinical and patient-based outcome measures.Material and MethodsFifty participants with a missing premolar were included and randomly assigned to standard (ZirDesign, DentsplySirona Implants, Molndal, Sweden) or computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized (Atlantis, DentsplySirona Implants, Molndal, Sweden) zirconia abutment therapy. Peri-implant bone level (primary outcome), Plaque-index, calculus formation, bleeding on probing, gingiva index, probing pocket depth, recession, appearance of soft tissues and patients' contentment were assessed shortly after placement and one year later.ResultsNo implants were lost and no complications related to the abutments were observed. Statistically significant differences between stock and CAD/CAM customized zirconia abutments could not be demonstrated for any of the operationalized variables.ConclusionThe use of a CAD/CAM customized zirconia abutment in single tooth replacement of a premolar is not associated with an improvement in clinical performance or patients' contentment when compared to the use of a stock zirconia abutment.</p

Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Implant placement and loading protocols

ObjectivesWorking Group 5 was convened to discuss and find consensus on the topics of implant placement and loading protocols associated with single missing teeth in the anterior maxilla (aesthetic zone). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives and future research suggestions were developed and presented to the plenary for discussion and approval.Materials and MethodsTwo systematic reviews were developed and submitted prior to the conference. The group considered in detail the systematic reviews and developed statements, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives and future research suggestions based on the findings of the reviews and experience of group members. Definitive versions were developed after presentation to and discussion by the plenary.ResultsFive consensus statements were developed and approved from each systematic review. Twelve clinical recommendations were developed by the group based on both reviews and experience. Three patient perspectives were developed, and five suggestions made for future research.ConclusionsBased on the findings of the systematic reviews and experience of group members, the Type 1A protocol (immediate placement and immediate loading), when utilized in the anterior maxilla under favorable conditions, is considered predictable and is associated with high survival rates. The procedure is considered clinically viable and is associated with aesthetic outcomes, although surgical, technical, and biological complications can occur

Mechanical testing of thin-walled zirconia abutments

Although the use of zirconia abutments for implant-supported restorations has gained momentum with the increasing demand for esthetics, little informed design rationale has been developed to characterize their fatigue behavior under different clinical scenarios. However, to prevent the zirconia from fracturing, the use of a titanium connection in bicomponent aesthetic abutments has been suggested. OBJECTIVE: Mechanical testing of customized thin-walled titanium-zirconia abutments at the connection with the implant was performed in order to characterize the fatigue behavior and the failure modes for straight and angled abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty custom-made bi-component abutments were tested according to ISO 14801:2007 either at a straight or a 25º angle inclination (n=10 each group). Fatigue was conducted at 15 Hz for 5 million cycles in dry conditions at 20ºC±5ºC. Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each group. All comparisons were performed by t-tests assuming unequal variances. The level of statistical significance was set at p≤0.05. Failed samples were inspected in a polarized-light and then in a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: Straight and angled abutments mean maximum load was 296.7 N and 1,145 N, the dynamic loading mean F(max) was 237.4 N and 240.7 N, respectively. No significant differences resulted between the straight and angled bi-component abutments in both static (p=0.253) and dynamic testing (p=0.135). A significant difference in the bending moment required for fracture was detected between the groups (p=0.01). Fractures in the angled group occurred mainly at the point of load application, whereas in the straight abutments, fractures were located coronally and close to the thinly designed areas at the cervical region. CONCLUSION: Angled or straight thin-walled zirconia abutments presented similar F(max) under fatigue testing despite the different bending moments required for fracture. The main implication is that although zirconia angled or straight abutments presented similar mechanical behavior, the failure mode tended to be more catastrophic in straight (fracture at the cervical region) compared to angled abutments

Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Prosthodontics and implant dentistry

ObjectivesWorking Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full‐arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs.Materials and methodsGroup 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached.ResultsA total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements.ConclusionsThe literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full‐arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One‐piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two‐piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.</p

Evidence-Based Criteria for Differential Treatment Planning of Implant Restorations for the Maxillary Edentulous Patient

Since the introduction of the endosseous concept to North America in 1982, there have been new permutations of the original ad modum Branemark design to meet the unique demands of treating the edentulous maxilla with an implant restoration. While there is a growing body of clinical evidence to assist the student, faculty, and private practitioner in the algorithms for design selection, confusion persists because of difficulty in assessing the external and internal validity of the relevant studies. The purpose of this article is to review clinician- and patient-mediated factors for implant restoration of the edentulous maxilla in light of the hierarchical level of available evidence, with the aim of elucidating the benefit/risk calculus of various treatment modalities