Translucent monolithic zirconia titanium-supported FP1 full-arch prosthesis: A novel proof of concept to address esthetic, functional, and biologic challenges

Fixed Full-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations: Techniques Review and Proposal for Improvement

Full-arch zirconia restorations on implants have gained popularity due to zirconia's strength and aesthetics, yet they are still associated with challenges like structural fractures, peri-implant complications, and design misfits. Advances in CAD/CAM and digital workflows offer potential improvements, but a technique that consistently addresses these issues in fixed, full-arch, implant-supported prostheses is needed. This novel technique integrates a facially and prosthetically driven treatment approach, which is divided into three phases: data acquisition, restoration design, and manufacturing/delivery. Digital tools, including intraoral scanning and photogrammetry, facilitate accurate implant positioning, while 3D design software enables functional and aesthetic validation before final milling. A dual software approach is used to reverse engineer a titanium bar from the final restoration design, ensuring a superior outcome to other protocols. The restoration incorporates a zirconia-titanium hybrid structure, optimizing strength, flexibility, and weight. The proposed workflow enhances restoration precision and predictability through a prosthetically driven treatment plan, by ensuring passivity and aligning with biological and mechanical principles to promote long-term stability. By starting with the proposed restoration design and reverse engineering the bar, while also allowing for flexibility in material and component choices, this technique accommodates both patient needs and financial considerations. This approach demonstrates potential for improving patient outcomes in full-arch implant restorations by minimizing complications associated with traditional methods. Further research is recommended to validate the technique's efficacy and broaden its clinical applications.

Classification system for maxillary fixed dental prostheses

PURPOSE

To present an addendum to existing fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) classification system for maxillary prostheses. The new classification identifies the relationships between FP-1 (fixed prostheses) designs and newly developed clinical interdental gingival contours.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical and laboratory descriptions of the various types of full-arch fixed prostheses are described with photographic illustrations. Benefits and limitations of the various prosthetic designs are explained. Surgical differences in the amount of alveolectomy are illustrated. One clinical case is demonstrated.

RESULTS

A new classification system for maxillary implant fixed complete dentures is presented. The new system will serve as an improved communication aid for clinicians, patients, and laboratory technicians. Treatment of patients with edentulous maxillae and/or terminal dentitions and implant fixed complete dentures include several options relative to design and materials. Restorative space can have a major impact on prosthesis design and longevity. Early on in dental implant therapy, prostheses were generally made with cast metal frameworks, denture bases and denture teeth. Prosthetic complications were widely reported. With increased clinical experience and improved materials, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) protocols were developed that allowed stronger prostheses to be constructed in reduced or small restorative volumes. FP-1 ceramic implant-supported fixed prostheses (CISFPs) are designed to replace only the dental hard tissues and to promote preservation and rehabilitation of gingival soft tissues. The physical properties and minimum thickness requirements in full arch prostheses are influenced by several factors including distances between implants and rigid connector sizes.

CONCLUSION

FP-1 CISFPs may be the closest prostheses the profession can offer edentulous patients that mimic the look, feel, and function of missing dentitions. Aesthetic outcomes of FP-1 CISFPs are variable and depend on a multitude of factors. This article presented a classification system that builds on existing classification by identifying the level of papilla heights achieved with FP-1 CISFPs.

Accuracy of navigation guided implant surgery for immediate loading complete arch restorations: Prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess navigation accuracy for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading of digitally prefabricated provisional.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive edentulous and terminal dentition patients requiring at least one complete-arch FDP were treated between December 2020 and January 2022. Accuracy was evaluated by superimposing pre-operative and post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), recording linear (mm) and angular (degrees) deviations. T-tests were performed to investigate the potential effect of the registration algorithm (fiducial-based vs. fiducial-free), type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm (teeth vs. bone screws), site characteristic (healed vs. post-extractive), implant angulation (axial vs. tilted), type of arch (maxilla vs. mandible) on the accuracy with p-value <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients, 36 complete-arches, and 161 implants were placed. The overall mean angular deviation was 2.19° (SD 1.26°). The global platform and apex mean deviations were 1.17 mm (SD 0.57 mm), and 1.30 mm (SD 0.62 mm). Meaningful global platform (p = 0.0009) and apical (p = 0.0109) deviations were experienced only between healed and post-extraction sites. None of the analyzed variables significantly influenced angular deviation. Minor single-axis deviations were reported for the type of jaw (y-axis at implant platform and apex), registration algorithm (y-axis platform and z-axis deviations), and type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to implant angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the study limitations navigation was reliable for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading digitally pre-fabricated FDP. AI-driven surface anatomy identification and calibration protocol made fiducial-free registration as accurate as fiducial-based, teeth and bone screws equal as references. Implant site characteristics were the only statistically significant variable with healed sites reporting higher accuracy compared to post-extractive. Live-tracked navigation surgery enhanced operator performance and accuracy regardless of implant angulation and type of jaw. A mean safety room of about 1 mm and 2° should be considered.

A Retrospective Evaluation of 5 Years of Clinical Results of Metal-Ceramic vs. Monolithic Zirconia Superstructures in Maxillary All-on-4TM Concept

The aim of the current study was to present the clinical and radiological outcomes of monolithic zirconia superstructures compared to the metal-ceramic ones in the All-on-4 concept for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the maxillae. A total of 30 patients were subdivided into groups according to their superstructure type (metal-ceramic (n = 15) or monolithic zirconia (n = 15)). All implants were functionally loaded within 24 h after insertion with provisional acrylic superstructures. Prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss, plaque accumulation, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and bite force were documented over a period of 5 years. Marginal bone loss around the implants of the ceramic group remained well over the five years (1.21 ± 0.23 mm). However, marginal bone loss was significantly lower around the implants in the monolithic zirconia group (0.22 ± 0.14 mm) (p < 0.001). Bleeding on probing, plaque accumulation, and probing pocket depth values were correlated with marginal bone loss. Among all evaluated parameters, no differences could be detected in terms of the angulation of the implants. Detachment or chipping was observed in seven cases in the metal-ceramic superstructure group. In all cases, dentures were removed and repaired in the laboratory. In the monolithic zirconia group, chipping was detected after one year in two cases, after two years in four cases, and after five years in one case and could be managed by polishing in situ. Monolithic zirconia superstructures presented superior results regarding the parameters evaluated.