Search

This study aims to validate the standardized procedure for designing soft tissue substitutes (STS) adapted to optimally fit single-tooth defects in the anterior jaws and double-tooth defects in the posterior jaw and to compare mathematically modeled average shapes.Casts from 35 patients with 17 single-tooth defects in anterior region and 21 double-tooth defects in posterior region were scanned. STS were designed and sectioned in 3D slices meshes. Thickness values were documented respecting mesial-distal and buccal-lingual orientations. Graphs were embedded into images, and hierarchical clustering was applied to group STS according to shape and thickness.STS clustered into two groups per defect type. For anterior single defects, STS (n = 4) were either a small and thin oval: 7 mm buccal-lingual, 4-5 mm mesial-distal direction and 1.1-1.5 mm thick or a larger oval (n = 13): 9 mm buccal-lingual, 5-7 mm mesial-distal and 1.6 m thick. For posterior double tooth defects, STS (n = 10) were either narrow, long and thick: 6-7 mm buccal-lingual, 16-20 mm mesial-distal and 2.2 thick or a wide, thinner rectangle (n = 11): 9-11 mm buccal-lingual, 12-14 mm mesial-distal and 1.1-1.5 mm thick.The study validated the standardized digital method to design grafts for soft tissue volume augmentation and identified four average shapes for anterior single-tooth and posterior double-tooth soft tissue defects.We developed and validated a standardized digital method to design an optimal geometrical shape of a soft tissue substitute for oral volume augmentation and combined it with mathematical modeling to identify average shapes for single-interior, and double-posterior tooth defects. The identified average shapes offer the possibility to produce better-fitted xenografts or synthetic STS blocks requiring minimal chair-side adaptation leading to reduced clinical time and patient discomfort and potentially improving soft tissue volume augmentation outcomes.

(1) Background: An alternative material to precious metal alloys are non-precious metal alloys. The material properties of these are different and, therefore, their clinical, biological and mechanical behaviors may also differ. Hence, the purpose of this in vivo investigation was to analyze the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients restored with non-precious metal alloy double crown-retained removable partial dentures (NP-D-RPDs). (2) Methods: Partially edentulous patients were restored with non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs. Survival rates, success rates, failures and patient-reported outcomes were investigated and statistically evaluated. (3) Results: A total of 61 patients (65.6 ± 10.8 years) were included and clinically and radiographically examined. The mean follow-up time was 25.2 ± 16.5 months. In total, 82 NP-D-RPDs and 268 abutment teeth were examined. The overall survival rate of the NP-D-RPDs was 100% after a mean follow-up time of 2.1 years. The overall success rate was 68.3%. The overall satisfaction with the NP-D-RPDs was 94.3%. (4) Conclusions: Non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs seem to be an efficient alternative to precious metal alloy RPDs with excellent patient-reported outcomes.

Monolithic zirconia implant-supported restorations connected to titanium bases or titanium inserts are increasing in popularity due to their application in a full digital workflow. These prefabricated abutments are connected to the all-ceramic superstructure by adhesive cementation. Although limited clinical data on the outcomes of this type of restoration are available, a few laboratory studies have shown possible debonding issues. This case report presents a bonding failure of a fixed dental prosthesis supported by titanium bases after short clinical use. A treatment alternative is also proposed using the available digital dental technology.

(1) Background: An alternative material to precious metal alloys are non-precious metal alloys. The material properties of these are different and, therefore, their clinical, biological and mechanical behaviors may also differ. Hence, the purpose of this in vivo investigation was to analyze the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients restored with non-precious metal alloy double crown-retained removable partial dentures (NP-D-RPDs). (2) Methods: Partially edentulous patients were restored with non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs. Survival rates, success rates, failures and patient-reported outcomes were investigated and statistically evaluated. (3) Results: A total of 61 patients (65.6 ± 10.8 years) were included and clinically and radiographically examined. The mean follow-up time was 25.2 ± 16.5 months. In total, 82 NP-D-RPDs and 268 abutment teeth were examined. The overall survival rate of the NP-D-RPDs was 100% after a mean follow-up time of 2.1 years. The overall success rate was 68.3%. The overall satisfaction with the NP-D-RPDs was 94.3%. (4) Conclusions: Non-precious metal alloy partially veneered NP-D-RPDs seem to be an efficient alternative to precious metal alloy RPDs with excellent patient-reported outcomes.

This scoping review aimed to present an overview of the literature on communication tools in esthetic dentistry. A variety of communication tools have been proposed to include patients in the shared decision-making (SDM) workflow. Only little is known about implementing communication tools in dentistry and their impact on patient communication and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and World of Science to identify if communication tools have an impact on patient satisfaction.The search included studies from January 1, 2000 to March 3, 2020 published in English, focusing on patient communication tools and patient satisfaction in esthetic dentistry.Out of 6678 records, 53 full-texts were examined. Ten studies were included. Data of the included studies were extracted systematically and subsequently analyzed. All studies found that patient communication utilizing specific communication tools positively impacted either patient satisfaction, patient-dentist relationship, information retention, treatment acceptance, quality of care or treatment outcome.Additional communication tools besides conventional verbal communication are able to enhance patient satisfaction, improve quality of care and establish a better patient-dentist relationship. It seems essential to further develop standardized communication tools for SDM in dental medicine, which will allow the comparison of research on this topic.This scoping review shows the importance of patient involvement in the decision-making process for improved patient satisfaction with esthetic dental treatments. With an increased implementation of communication tools, patient satisfaction and SDM may further improve in the future.

OBJECTIVES: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.RESULTS: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.

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.

The basic principle of the rabbit calvarial model is to grow new bone tissue vertically on top of the cortical part of the skull. This model allows assessment of bone substitution materials for oral and craniofacial bone regeneration in terms of bone growth and neovascularization support. Once animals are anesthetized and ventilated (endotracheal intubation), four cylinders made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) are screwed onto the skull, on both sides of the median and coronal sutures. Five intramedullary holes are drilled within the bone area delimited by each cylinder, allowing influx of bone marrow cells. The material samples are placed into the cylinders which are then closed. Finally, the surgical site is sutured, and animals are awaken. Bone growth may be assessed on live animals by using microtomography. Once animals are euthanized, bone growth and neovascularization may be evaluated by using microtomography, immune-histology and immunofluorescence. As the evaluation of a material requires maximum standardization and calibration, the calvarial model appears ideal. Access is very easy, calibration and standardization are facilitated by the use of defined cylinders and four samples may be assessed simultaneously. Furthermore, live tomography may be used and ultimately a large decrease in animals to be euthanized may be anticipated.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), 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.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), 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, prospectivecohort and retrospective case series on implant ­supported SCs with a mean follow ­up time of at least 3years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the follow ­up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performedindependently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson’s regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5­year 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 implant­supported crowns. Meta ­analysis revealed an estimated 5­year 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 5­year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal ­ceramic, 2.8% zirconia­ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconia­ceramic 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: Zirconia­ceramic implant­supported 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., This systematic review was performed in the context of the ITI Consensus Conference 2018. The reviewers would like to thank all contacted authors that provided additional information on their studies that helped complete the data set analyzed in the present work. Special thanks to Dr. Paolo Vigolo and his team for their huge effort in that respect.

The impact of prosthetic material selection on implant survival is not clear. The current criteria for choosing a prosthetic material seem to be based on clinician preferences. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of restorative materials on the mid- and long-term survival of implants supporting single crowns and fixed partial dentures.Hand and MEDLINE searches were performed to identify relevant literature for single crowns (SC) and fixed partial dentures (FPD). Further inclusion criteria were a mean follow-up period of at least 3 years, the inclusion of at least 10 patients in a relevant study cohort, and a clear description of prosthesis type and prosthetic material.A total of 63 studies for the SC group and 11 studies for the FPD group were included. Full arch restorations were not included. The materials utilised in the SC group were metal-ceramic (precious and non-precious), lithium-disilicate, veneered zirconia, veneered alumina, and nanoceramics. The materials used in the FPD group were metal-ceramic (precious), veneered titanium, metal-resin (precious), and veneered zirconia. No significant impact on the prosthetic material relating to mid- or long-term implant survival was identified. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the survival rates of the dental prostheses made from different materials (SC and FPD group). Single crowns made of nanoceramics showed a higher risk for decementation relative to other materials (0.80, 95% CI [0.67; 0.89]; P0.0001), whereas metal-resin FPDs showed a higher risk for chipping (0.36, 95% CI [0.23; 0.52]; P = 0.0072).The current evidence suggests that prosthetic material selection has no influence on mid- and long-term survival of implants restored with single crowns and fixed partial dentures. Similarly, the prosthetic material seems to have no significant impact on prosthetic survival rates. Further research is required to provide more evidence regarding the impact of the prosthetic material on long-term outcome. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Adhesive cementation is a useful procedure not only for cementing restorations onto teeth but also for attaching new ceramic restorations to existing restorations to improve their esthetics and/or function. This clinical report presents a technique for modifying an existing nonsatisfactory implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis by means of adhesively cemented veneers and onlays bonded to the pre-existing metal-ceramic surface with resin cement. This modification may avoid the replacement of the fixed dental prosthesis, reducing both treatment costs and time while fulfilling the patient's demands.