Prosthetic Survival and Complication Rate of Single Implant Treatment in the Periodontally Healthy Patient after 16 to 22 Years of Follow-Up

Long-term retention and survival of cemented implant-supported zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of different cement types on the incidence of failure and loss of retention of zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns (SCs) cemented on implant abutments.

METHODS

We placed 567 implant-supported SCs in 358 patients and retrospectively evaluated long-term retention for up to 12.8 years. The frameworks were made from metal alloy (n = 307) or zirconia (n = 260). SCs were cemented with permanent (glass-ionomer cement; n = 376) or semipermanent cement (zinc oxide non-eugenol cement; n = 191) on standardized (n = 446) or customized (n = 121) abutments. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to calculate the incidence of decementation. Differences between survival curves were assessed with log-rank tests. Cox-regression analysis was performed to evaluate multiple risk factors.

RESULTS

Of the 567 SCs, 22 failed because of technical complications and four because of implant loss. Loss of retention was observed in 50 SCs. Analysis revealed a 7% probability of loss of retention for zirconia and 16% for metal-ceramic SCs after 10 years (p = .011). After 5 years, loss of retention was higher for standardized abutments than for customized abutments (p = .014). The probability of loss of retention was higher with semipermanent than with permanent cement (p = .001). Cox-regression analysis revealed semipermanent cement as the only significant risk factor for SC failure (p = .026).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to semipermanent cement, permanent cement provides acceptable long-term retention of cemented implant-supported SCs. These possible positive effects of customized abutments have to be controlled with larger sample sizes.

Incidence of Peri-Implantitis, Technical and Biological Complications of Single Implants Placed with Flap or Flapless Surgery-A 10-12-Year Case-Series

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up of single implants and crowns is scarce, especially when inserted using flapless surgery.

AIM

Evaluate survival, peri-implantitis incidence, and technical/biologic complications of solitary implants/crowns after 10-12 years of function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

49 patients with 53 single implants, initially operated with a one-stage flap (F) or flapless (FL) surgery and delayed loading, were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone-level changes compared to baseline, peri-implant health, and soft tissue aesthetics were registered. Differences in implant level between and within groups were statistically tested using the Mann-Whitney U-Test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, respectively.

RESULTS

36 patients with 40 implants were reassessed, yielding 100% implant and 97.5% crown survival. The bone loss in F (n = 19) was 0.56 mm (SD 0.89; range -0.9-2.02) and -0.85 mm (SD 0.98; range -2.84-0.53) in FL (n = 21), indicative of bone gain in FL (p = 0.003), the latter due to a difference at baseline but bone-level was comparable (p = 0.126). Groups were comparable for probing pocket depth (PPD); (3.32 vs. 3.19 mm), Bleeding Index (BI); (0.15 vs. 0.22), and gingival recession; (0.38 vs. 0.17 mm). According to international criteria, the peri-implantitis incidence was 0%, but 32.5% of the implants/crowns experienced biological or technical complications irrespective of surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Solitary implants and crowns show good long-term clinical outcomes and peri-implant health. Flapless surgery is a good alternative to conventional in straightforward cases with sufficient bone volume and proper treatment planning.

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

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.

Early peri-implant bone loss as a predictor for peri-implantitis: A 10-year prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of early bone loss (EBL), on long-term bone stability and future peri-implantitis development.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients referred for implant placement between 2005 and 2009 were consecutively treated and followed for 10 years. After 10 years, patients were invited for a scientific diagnostic visit to evaluate implant survival and bone loss. Bone level changes were compared with baseline. Non-parametric testing was performed in cross-tabs (Pearson Chi-square and Fishers's exact test). Kaplan-Meier-estimated survival curves were plotted for different thresholds for EBL at different timepoints. Generalized linear mixed models with binomial distribution and logit link for peri-implantitis were fitted. An adjusted logistic mixed model was made to evaluate peri-implantitis, in relation with smoking status, history of periodontitis, and EBL > 0.5 mm.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seven patients (mean age of 64.86 years [range 28-92, SD 10.11]), with 1482 implants, responded to the 10-year recall invitation. After an average follow-up time of 10.66 years (range 10-14, SD 0.87), implant survival was 94.74%. Mean crestal bone loss after 10 years was 0.81 mm (SD 1.58, range 0.00-17.00). One hundred and seventy five implants in 76 patients had peri-implantitis (11.8% on implant level, 18.7% on patient level). EBL of 0.5, 1, and 2 mm were significant predictors for peri-implantitis and implant loss after 10 years. Implants with EBL ≥0.5 mm during the first year of function showed a 5.43 times higher odds for future peri-implantitis development. Probability in developing peri-implantitis was 52.06% when smoking, Periodontal history and EBL of >0.5 mm was combined.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that EBL is a predictor for long-term peri-implant pathology, with a significant higher risk for peri-implantitis when early bone loss exceeds the thresholds of 0.5 and 1 mm, especially when additional risk factors such as smoking or susceptibility for periodontal disease prior to implant treatment are present. Clinical trial registration number B670201524796.

Clinical performance of implant crowns with customized zirconia abutments: A prospective cohort study with a 4.5- to 8.8-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical and esthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction of screw-retained one-piece implant crowns fabricated with zirconia abutments after a 4.5- to 8.8-year follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-two patients (12 women and 20 men), who received 40 implant single crowns in anterior and premolar sites, were included in this prospective study. All restorations were based on ceramic hand-veneered customized CAD/CAM zirconia abutments. The follow-up consisted of clinical and radiological examinations. The pink esthetic score-white esthetic score (PES-WES) was used to evaluate the esthetic outcome. Patients' satisfaction was assessed via visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Implant and prosthetic survival rates were 100% and 97.5%, respectively. Mean marginal bone loss was -0.17 mm (SD 1.16 mm). Probing depth was ≤4 mm in 98.7% and 5 mm in 1.3% of the sites; 8.3% of them were bleeding on probing positive. No technical or biological complications were observed except for one abutment fracture. The mean PES-WES scores were 7.0 and 7.1, respectively. VAS scores (10-point) of 9.41 for function and 9.26 for esthetics showed high patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

After a mean observation period of 6 years and 7 months, screw-retained implant crowns based on veneered customized CAD/CAM zirconia abutments with conical connection showed very good clinical performance and may be recommended for the replacement of missing anterior and premolar teeth. (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT04370314).

Fracture strength of various titanium-based, CAD-CAM and PFM implant crowns

OBJECTIVE

CAD-CAM has dramatically advanced dental restorative procedures to include implant-supported crowns. The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistance following mechanical loading and thermocycling of various screw-retained and cement-retained ceramic and polymethylmethacrylate material combinations using the TiBase abutment compared to PFM implant-supported crowns.

OVERVIEW

Twelve implant restorations were fabricated for each of eight groups. Three groups were screw-retained and five groups were cement-retained implant restorations. The ceramic and polymethylmethacrylate restorations were fabricated on the TiBase abutment while the PFM restorations were fabricated on an UCLA abutment. Data were analyzed with a one way Analysis of Variance and Tukey's post-hoc test to evaluate the effect of abutment and crown type on fracture load (alpha = 0.05). A significant difference was found in the maximum fracture load between groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The screw-retained implant restorations demonstrated higher fracture loads than their cement-retained counterparts. The TiBase abutment compared favorably to the UCLA abutment.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The TiBase abutment is a titanium insert which combines the esthetics of a ceramic abutment with the mechanical properties of a titanium abutment and should be considered a viable clinical alternative to the conventional implant-supported PFM crown based on theses in vitro results and in context of in vivo studies. The lithium disilicate hybrid abutment/crown implant-supported restoration utilizing the TiBase abutment may be an ideal clinical choice due to simplicity, single appointment CAD-CAM, and esthetics.

Long-term performance of implant-supported metal-ceramic and all-ceramic single crowns

PURPOSE

To evaluate failure rates and incidence of chipping for metal-ceramic and all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).

METHODS

Six hundred and fifty-two implant-supported SCs placed in 404 patients (mean age: 57.8 years; 193 male; mean SCs per patient: 1.6) were evaluated up to 12.8 years. The frameworks of the SCs were made from Au alloys (n = 319), CoCr (n = 37), zirconia (n = 286), or lithium disilicate (n = 10). Full-coverage ceramic veneers were placed on 319 Au SCs, 34 CoCr SCs, and 92 zirconia SCs. One hundred and fifty-two monolithic zirconia SCs were not veneered. A partial veneer was placed on the buccal surface only of a further 42 zirconia SCs.

RESULTS

A total of 26 failures were caused by loss of implants (n = 6), ceramic fractures and chipping (n = 15), loosening of the abutment (n = 4), or swallowing of a de-cemented SC (n = 1). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a probability of survival of 96% after five years and 92% after 10 years. A greater incidence of failure was observed for lithium disilicate and zirconia SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs (p < .05). Separate analysis of the most frequent complication, chipping (n = 61), revealed that zirconia and lithium disilicate frameworks were significant risk factors for chipping (p < 0.05). Furthermore, a significantly greater incidence of chipping was observed for SCs with full-coverage veneers than for monolithic zirconia SCs and for SCs with partial veneers (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Avoidance of full-coverage veneers significantly improves the clinical performance of implant-supported crowns, primarily reduces the incidence of chipping.

The clinical performance of all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed at evaluating the survival and technical complication rates of all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched for clinical studies conducted at ≥ 15 patients examining implant-supported all-ceramic SCs over ≥ 12 months. Survival rates of implants and restorations plus technical complication rates of SCs were calculated and tested for statistical correlation with confounding variables. Statistical analysis was performed using a negative binomial distribution model to calculate 5- and 10-year survival and complication estimates.

RESULTS

Forty-one included studies reported on implant-supported SCs made of veneered and monolithic high-strength oxide ceramics, monolithic, and veneered glass-based ceramics and of a monolithic resin-nano-ceramic (RNC). Survival estimates for SCs of 93% (95% CI: 86.6%-96.4%) after 5 years and 94.4% (95% CI: 91.1%-96.5%) after 10 years were calculated, corresponding values for implant survival were 95.3% (95% CI: 90.6%-97.7%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 95.1%-97.1%). Technical complication rates after 5/10 years were as follows: chipping 9.0% (95% CI: 5.4%-14.8%)/2.7% (95% CI: 2.1%-3.5%), framework fractures 1.9% (95% CI: 0.7%-4.9%)/1.2% (95% CI: 1%-1.5%), screw loosening 3.6% (95% CI: 1.6%-8.4%)/5.2% (95% CI: 3.6%-7.5%), and decementations with 1.1% (95% CI: 0.4%-2.8%) after 5 years. Some confounding variables influenced the above-mentioned estimates significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

All-ceramic implant-supported SCs showed-with the exception of a RNC material-high survival rates. However, failures and technical complications occurred which have to be considered when informing patients on the treatment with implant-supported all-ceramic SCs.

In vitro fatigue tests and in silico finite element analysis of dental implants with different fixture/abutment joint types using computer-aided design models

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate fatigue resistance of dental fixtures with two different fixture-abutment connections by in vitro fatigue testing and in silico three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D FEA) using original computer-aided design (CAD) models.

METHODS

Dental implant fixtures with external connection (EX) or internal connection (IN) abutments were fabricated from original CAD models using grade IV titanium and step-stress accelerated life testing was performed. Fatigue cycles and loads were assessed by Weibull analysis, and fatigue cracking was observed by micro-computed tomography and a stereomicroscope with high dynamic range software. Using the same CAD models, displacement vectors of implant components were also analyzed by 3D FEA. Angles of the fractured line occurring at fixture platforms in vitro and of displacement vectors corresponding to the fractured line in silico were compared by two-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Fatigue testing showed significantly greater reliability for IN than EX (p<0.001). Fatigue crack initiation was primarily observed at implant fixture platforms. FEA demonstrated that crack lines of both implant systems in vitro were observed in the same direction as displacement vectors of the implant fixtures in silico.

CONCLUSIONS

In silico displacement vectors in the implant fixture are insightful for geometric development of dental implants to reduce complex interactions leading to fatigue failure.

Mechanical and biological complication rates of the modified lateral-screw-retained implant prosthesis in the posterior region: an alternative to the conventional Implant prosthetic system

PURPOSE

The modified lateral-screw-retained implant prosthesis (LSP) is designed to combine the advantages of screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. This retrospective study evaluated the mechanical and biological complication rates of implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) inserted with the modified LSP in the posterior region, and determined how these complication rates are affected by clinical factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mechanical complications (i.e., lateral screw loosening [LSL], abutment screw loosening, lateral screw fracture, and ceramic fracture) and biological complications (i.e., peri-implant mucositis [PM] and peri-implantitis) were identified from the patients' treatment records, clinical photographs, periapical radiographs, panoramic radiographs, and clinical indices. The correlations between complication rates and the following clinical factors were determined: gender, age, position in the jaw, placement location, functional duration, clinical crown-to-implant length ratio, crown height space, and the use of a submerged or nonsubmerged placement procedure.

RESULTS

Mechanical and biological complications were present in 25 of 73 ISSCs with the modified LSP. LSL (n=11) and PM (n=11) were the most common complications. The incidence of mechanical complications was significantly related to gender (P=.018). The other clinical factors were not significantly associated with mechanical and biological complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the incidence of mechanical and biological complications in the posterior region was similar for both modified LSP and conventional implant prosthetic systems. In addition, the modified LSP is amenable to maintenance care, which facilitates the prevention and treatment of mechanical and biological complications.

Aesthetic outcome of immediately restored single implants placed in extraction sockets and healed sites of the anterior maxilla: a retrospective study on 103 patients with 3 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic outcome of single implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges of the anterior maxilla by means of the pink aesthetic score/white aesthetic score (PES/WES) index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data from 103 patients (43 males, 60 females) aged 24-65 years (mean age 41.4 ± 13.8 years) who had been successfully treated with a single implant in the anterior maxilla, in four different clinical centres. Forty-two patients (mean age 46.5 ± 15.1 years) were treated with a single implant in a fresh post-extraction socket (immediate implant treatment, IIT), while 61 patients (mean age 38.0 ± 11.8 years) were treated with a single implant in a healed site (conventional implant treatment, CIT). Two independent calibrated examiners applied the PES/WES index to the 103 single-tooth restorations, respectively 3 months and 3 years after implant placement.

RESULTS

A few biological (4.8%) and prosthetic (8.7%) complications were reported. Both IIT and CIT yielded satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. At the delivery of the final restoration, a PES/WES score of 16.6 ± 2.6 and 15.7 ± 3.0 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was not statistically significant. A higher decrease in the PES/WES score was observed with CIT over time. At 3 years, a PES/WES score of 16.4 ± 2.8 and 15.2 ± 3.3 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was statistically significant. IIT seemed to yield better aesthetic outcomes in young patients (≤30 years), with implants placed in central incisor/cuspid areas, in the presence of bone contouring.

CONCLUSIONS

Both immediate and conventional single-implant treatment in the anterior maxilla can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes, when performed by experienced clinicians in well-selected cases. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.