Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Pjetursson BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293296 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The reduced hardware design of narrow implants increases the risk of fracture not only of the implant itself but also of the prosthetic constituents. Hence, the current study is aimed at estimating the probability of survival of anterior crowns supported by different narrow implant systems. Three different narrow implant systems of internal conical connections were evaluated (Ø3.5 × 10?mm): (i) Active (Nobel Biocare), (ii) Epikut (S.I.N. Implant System), and (iii) BLX (Straumann). Abutments were torqued to the implants, and standardized maxillary incisor crowns were cemented. The assemblies were subjected to step-stress accelerated life testing (SSALT) in water through load application of 30 degrees off-axis lingually at the incisal edge of the crowns using a flat tungsten carbide indenter until fracture or suspension. The use level probability Weibull curves and reliability for completion of a mission of 100,000 cycles at 80?N and 120?N were calculated and plotted. Weibull modulus and characteristic strength were also calculated and plotted. Fractured samples were analyzed in a stereomicroscope. The beta (?) values were 1.6 (0.9-3.1) and 1.4 (0.9-2.2) for BLX and Active implants, respectively, and 0.5 (0.3-0.8) for the Epikut implant, indicating that failures were mainly associated with fatigue damage accumulation in the formers, but more likely associated with material strength in the latter. All narrow implant systems showed high probability of survival (?95%, CI: 85-100%) at 80 and 120?N, without significant difference between them. Weibull modulus ranged from 6 to 14. The characteristic strength of Active, Epikut, and BLX was 271 (260-282)?N, 216 (205-228)?N, and 275 (264-285)?N, respectively. The failure mode predominantly involved abutment and/or abutment screw fracture, whereas no narrow implant was fractured. Therefore, all narrow implant systems exhibited a high probability of survival for anterior physiologic masticatory forces, and failures were restricted to abutment and abutment screw.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science concerned with building smart software or machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. We present a protocol for the use of AI to fabricate implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) cemented on customized hybrid abutments. METHODS:The study protocol consisted of: (1) intraoral scan of the implant position; (2) design of the individual abutment and temporary crown using computer-aided design (CAD) software; (3) milling of the zirconia abutment and the temporary polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crown, with extraoral cementation of the zirconia abutment on the relative titanium bonding base, to generate an individual hybrid abutment; (4) clinical application of the hybrid abutment and the temporary PMMA crown; (5) intraoral scan of the hybrid abutment; (6) CAD of the final crown with automated margin line design using AI; (7) milling, sintering and characterisation of the final MZC; and (8) clinical application of the MZC. The outcome variables were mathematical (quality of the fabrication of the individual zirconia abutment) and clinical, such as (1) quality of the marginal adaptation, (2) of interproximal contact points and (3) of occlusal contacts, (4) chromatic integration, (5) survival and (6) success of MZCs. A careful statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS:90 patients (35 males, 55 females; mean age 53.3?±?13.7?years) restored with 106 implant-supported MZCs were included in the study. The follow-up varied from 6 months to 3 years. The quality of the fabrication of individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44??m (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalization. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent. The three-year cumulative survival and success of the MZCs were 99.0% and 91.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:AI seems to represent a reliable tool for the restoration of single implants with MZCs cemented on customised hybrid abutments via a full digital workflow. Further studies are needed to confirm these positive results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.Materials and methodsBased 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.ResultsEight 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.ConclusionsDue 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical studies regarding zirconia implant abutments reported good survival rates in the short-term observation period. The purpose of this study was to assess the six-year clinical performance of zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions. METHODS:The patients received zirconia implant abutments to support all-ceramic crowns in Chang-Gung Medical Center during the period August 2010 to August 2011 were enrolled. In the following six years of observation period after the implant-crown had finished, the clinical parameters of all of the included patients were registered on a special form. The records regarding the following variables: age, gender, implant location, the condition of edentulous site before implant placement, esthetic performance at baseline, presence or absence of technical complications, and biological outcomes were registered and scrutinized for evaluation. RESULTS:Out of the 32 zirconia implant abutments and 32 all-ceramic crowns that were followed for six years. Neither abutments nor crowns were lost, yielding 100% survival rates for both zirconia abutments and crowns. The esthetic outcomes were excellent except that a score of 2 was given to two restorations. With regard to technical complications, there was one instance of abutment screw loosening, two cases of veneering ceramic chipping, one restoration with occlusal roughness, and three instances of crowns loosening. Overall, the success rates were 96.8% and 81.2% for abutments and crowns respectively. In biological performance, only 1 implant was classified in group II (satisfactory survival) in the Misch classification, while all the others were classified in group I (excellent). CONCLUSIONS:Zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns demonstrated high survival rate, good biological and esthetic results. While some technical complications were frequently observed, the complication-free rates were 96.8% for abutments and 81.2% for crowns in the medium-term observation period.

Project description:Aim:To compare implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of immediately loaded single implants inserted by using ultrasonic implant site preparation (UISP) (test) and conventional rotary instrumentation (control). Methods:Two single implants were inserted for each patient: after randomization, test site was prepared by using an ultrasonic device (Piezosurgery Touch, Mectron, Italy) and control site was prepared by using the drills of the selected implant system (Premium AZT, Sweden & Martina, Italy), until reaching a final diameter of 3?mm in both groups. Identical implants (3.8x11.5?mm) were inserted in all sites at crestal level. Impressions were taken and screwed resin single crowns with platform-switched provisional abutments were delivered with 48 hours. Periapical radiographs were taken at provisional crown insertion (T0), 6 months (T1) and one year (T2) after prosthetic loading to measure MBL. All data were tested for normality and subsequently analyzed by paired samples t-test and forward multiple linear regression. Results:Forty-eight patients were treated in six centers with the insertion of ninety-six implants (48 test; 48 control). Four implants in four patients failed within the first six months of healing (two in test group; two in control group; no difference between groups). Forty patients (age 60.1±10.7 years; 22 female, 18 male) were included in the final analysis. Mean MBL after six months of loading was 1.39±1.03?mm in the test group and 1.42±1.16?mm in the control group (p>0.05) and after one year was 1.92±1.14?mm and 2.14±1.55?mm in test and control, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusions:No differences in survival rate and MBL were demonstrated between UISP and conventional site preparation with rotary instruments in immediately loaded dental implants: UISP, with its characteristics of enhanced surgical control and safety in proximity of delicate structures, may be used as a reliable alternative to the traditional drilling systems.