A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns

Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). Materials and Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. Results: The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts, full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles, resulting in 35 included studies on implant-supported crowns. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8–99.1) for metal-ceramic implant supported SCs (n = 4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3–99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n = 912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7–91.0) of the metal-ceramic SCs (n = 1,300) experienced no biological/technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n = 76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6–93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metal-ceramics. The 5-year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal-ceramic, 2.8% zirconia-ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconia-ceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metal-ceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3 years follow-up time and clinical examination of the present systematic review. Conclusion: Zirconia-ceramic implant-supported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metal-ceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the material groups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses

Objectives: The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with metal-ceramic FDPs. Materials and Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies and retrospective case series on implant-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. Results: The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles resulting in 19 studies on implant FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported on 932 metal-ceramic and 175 zirconia-ceramic FDPs. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.8%–99.5%) for metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs, and of 93.0% (95% CI: 90.6%–94.8%) for zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs (p < 0.001). Thirteen studies including 781 metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs estimated a 5-year rate of ceramic fractures and chippings to be 11.6% compared with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) complication rate for zirconia implant-supported FDPs of 50%, reported in a small study with 13 zirconia implant-supported FDPs. Significantly (p = 0.001) more, that is, 4.1%, of the zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs were lost due to ceramic fractures compared to only 0.2% of the metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs. Detailed analysis of factors like number of units of the FDPs or location in the jaws was not possible due to heterogeneity of reporting. No studies on monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the present review. Furthermore, no conclusive results were found for the aesthetic outcomes of both FDP-types. Conclusion: For implant-supported FDPs, conventionally veneered zirconia should not be considered as material selection of first priority, as pronounced risk for framework fractures and chipping of the zirconia veneering ceramic was observed. Monolithic zirconia may be an interesting alternative, but its clinical medium- to long-term outcomes have not been evaluated yet. Hence, metal ceramics seems to stay the golden standard for implant-supported multiple-unit FDPs

Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics

Objectives Group‐2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology». Focused research questions were: (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant‐supported multi‐unit fixed dental prostheses.Materials and MethodsLiterature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted.ResultsAdditively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw‐retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1‐year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant‐supported multi‐unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3‐year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates.ConclusionsFor interim tooth‐colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long‐term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi‐unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications

Stress analysis of a fixed implant-supported denture by the finite element method (FEM) when varying the number of teeth used as abutments

OBJECTIVES: In some clinical situations, dentists come across partially edentulous patients, and it might be necessary to connect teeth to implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate a metal-ceramic fixed tooth/implant-supported denture with a straight segment, located in the posterior region of the maxilla, when varying the number of teeth used as abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-element fixed denture composed of one tooth and one implant (Model 1), and a four-element fixed denture composed of two teeth and one implant (Model 2) were modeled. A 100 N load was applied, distributed uniformly on the entire set, simulating functional mastication, for further analysis of the SEQV (Von Mises) principal stresses, which were compared with the flow limit of the materials. RESULTS: In a quantitative analysis, it may be observed that in the denture with one tooth, the maximum SEQV stress was 47.84 MPa, whereas for the denture with two teeth the maximum SEQV stress was 35.82 MPa, both located in the region between the pontic and the tooth. CONCLUSION: Lower stresses were observed in the denture with an additional tooth. Based on the flow limit of the materials, porcelain showed values below the limit of functional mastication

Bone tissue response to plasma-nitrided titanium implant surfaces

A current goal of dental implant research is the development of titanium (Ti) surfaces to improve osseointegration. Plasma nitriding treatments generate surfaces that favor osteoblast differentiation, a key event to the process of osteogenesis. Based on this, it is possible to hypothesize that plasma-nitrided Ti implants may positively impact osseointegration. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vivo bone response to Ti surfaces modified by plasma-nitriding treatments. Material and Methods Surface treatments consisted of 20% N2 and 80% H2, 450°C and 1.5 mbar during 1 h for planar and 3 h for hollow cathode. Untreated surface was used as control. Ten implants of each surface were placed into rabbit tibiae and 6 weeks post-implantation they were harvested for histological and histomorphometric analyses. Results Bone formation was observed in contact with all implants without statistically significant differences among the evaluated surfaces in terms of bone-to-implant contact, bone area between threads, and bone area within the mirror area. Conclusion Our results indicate that plasma nitriding treatments generate Ti implants that induce similar bone response to the untreated ones. Thus, as these treatments improve the physico-chemical properties of Ti without affecting its biocompatibility, they could be combined with modifications that favor bone formation in order to develop new implant surfaces

Communication methods and production techniques in fixed prosthesis fabrication: a UK based survey. Part 2: Production techniques

Aim The aim of this study was to identify the communication methods and production techniques used by dentists and dental technicians for the fabrication of fixed prostheses within the UK from the dental technicians' perspective. This second paper reports on the production techniques utilised.Materials and methods Seven hundred and eighty-two online questionnaires were distributed to the Dental Laboratories Association membership and included a broad range of topics, such as demographics, impression disinfection and suitability, and various production techniques. Settings were managed in order to ensure anonymity of respondents. Statistical analysis was undertaken to test the influence of various demographic variables such as the source of information, the location, and the size of the dental laboratory.Results The number of completed responses totalled 248 (32% response rate). Ninety percent of the respondents were based in England and the majority of dental laboratories were categorised as small sized (working with up to 25 dentists). Concerns were raised regarding inadequate disinfection protocols between dentists and dental laboratories and the poor quality of master impressions. Full arch plastic trays were the most popular impression tray used by dentists in the fabrication of crowns (61%) and bridgework (68%). The majority (89%) of jaw registration records were considered inaccurate. Forty-four percent of dental laboratories preferred using semi-adjustable articulators. Axial and occlusal under-preparation of abutment teeth was reported as an issue in about 25% of cases. Base metal alloy was the most (52%) commonly used alloy material. Metal-ceramic crowns were the most popular choice for anterior (69%) and posterior (70%) cases. The various factors considered did not have any statistically significant effect on the answers provided. The only notable exception was the fact that more methods of communicating the size and shape of crowns were utilised for large laboratories.Conclusion This study suggests that there are continuing issues in the production techniques utilised between dentists and dental laboratories