Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant-supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons

Implant-supported crowns with locking taper implant-abutment connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implant-supported single crowns are more prone to screw loosening than splinted prostheses. Therefore, the locking taper system, which has a screwless abutment, may perform better when associated with this type of rehabilitation. However, systematic reviews on this system are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical performance and complications of single crowns retained by the locking taper system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under CRD42020189921. An electronic search was made in 5 databases and 3 other sources up to February 2021 to select prospective clinical studies evaluating the performance of single crowns retained by the locking taper system by using the outcomes implant survival, success rate, complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), and prosthesis success rate. Four meta-analyses grouped according to the follow-up intervals were performed. The risk of bias of the selected studies was evaluated by using the RoB 2 checklist for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Downs and Black for uncontrolled studies.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included: 9 prospective cohort studies and 3 RCTs. A survival rate of 99% (98% to 99%) and a success rate of 97% (92% to 99%) after 5 years were found. Of the total, 2.6% biological and 2.9% prosthetic complications were described. The prosthesis success rate was 97% (96% to 98%) after 5 years. An average of -0.73 mm (-0.93 to -0.52) was found for the MBL after 5 years. The risk-of-bias assessment showed 2 RCTs with high risk and 1 RCT with low risk of bias. Among uncontrolled studies, 2 were classified as poor and 7 as fair.

CONCLUSIONS

Single crowns retained by locking taper implants can be safely indicated based on the high survival and success rates achieved in the long term, the maintenance of bone level stability over time, and the low incidence of complications.

A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations

Background: The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are among the most used types of restorations in implant prostheses, due to their aesthetic and clinical advantages. When cemented prostheses are made on implants, the problem of cement residues is important and often associated with biological implant pathologies. The objective of this research was to establish to what extent the techniques to reduce excess cement really affect the volume of cement residues. Materials and Methods: This review was written following the PRISMA statement; a detailed search was carried out in three different electronic databases—PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies, with at least 10 participants per group, and with at least 6 months of the follow-up period. Results: There have been many proposals for techniques supposed to reduce the amount of excess cement in the peri-implant sulcus and on the prosthetic components, but of these, which are exceptional in their in vitro capabilities, very few have been clinically validated, and this represents the real limitation and a great lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Three articles met the inclusion criteria, which were analyzed and compared, to obtain the information necessary for the purposes of the systematic review. Discussion: Extraoral cementation can reduce the excess cement, which, after a normal excess removal procedure, is, nevertheless, of such size that it does not affect the possibility of peri-implant pathologies developing. All these studies concluded that a small amount of cement residue is found in the gingival sulcus, and using eugenol-free oxide cements, the residues were only deposited on the metal surfaces, with a better peri-implant tissues health. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of this study, it was possible to carefully analyze these characteristics and obtain valuable suggestions for daily clinical practice. Resinous cements are considered, due to the free monomers present in them, toxic for the soft tissues. The provisional zinc-oxide cements, also eugenol-free, represent the ideal choice. The different grades of retentive forces provided by these cements do not seem to have clinical effects on the decementation of restorations.

Peri-implant marginal bone changes with implant-supported metal-ceramic or monolithic zirconia single crowns: A retrospective clinical study of 1 to 5 years

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Monolithic zirconia has excellent mechanical and biologic properties. However, evidence of the clinical properties of implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the peri-implant marginal bone changes of metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia single crowns in the posterior region after prosthetic loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 224 participants treated with 327 implants restored with either metal-ceramic or monolithic zirconia single crowns in the posterior region between 2012 and 2016 were included in this study. Clinical outcomes, including the plaque index, peri-implant probing depth, and bleeding on probing, were recorded, and the marginal bone level was recorded by using the panoramic radiographs obtained at implant placement, second-stage surgery, and the most recent follow-up visit. The included parameters were analyzed with the nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 30.4 months, and the cumulative survival rate of implants was 100% and that of the prostheses was 99.1%. The plaque index was 0.46 in the metal-ceramic group, which was significantly higher (P<.05) than 0.37 in the monolithic zirconia group. However, no significant differences (P>.05) were observed in peri-implant probing depth and bleeding on probing between the 2 groups. The marginal bone level at implant placement, second-stage surgery, and the most recent follow-up visit was above the implant platform in both the metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia groups. The marginal bone changes of the metal-ceramic group was 0.31 mm in the healing period and 0.38 mm in the prosthetic loading period, while in the monolithic zirconia group, it was 0.25 mm in the healing period and 0.43 mm in the prosthetic loading period; no significant differences (P>.05) were observed between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The peri-implant marginal bone level change was comparable after prosthetic loading for metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia single crowns, although monolithic zirconia was associated with reduced plaque.