Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Survey of screw-retained versus cement-retained implant restorations used in both education and private dental practices

AIMS

In the literature, it is still unclear if the decisions for selecting the type of implant crown-retaining system are based on scientific-based research or if the Universities' choices, Implant marketing trends, or finances could have a major influence on the private dentists' decisions.

OBJECTIVES

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the crown-retaining system (cement- or screw-retained) used in dental schools and private dental practices.

METHODS

A 13-item questionnaire was sent to Canadian dental schools (n = 10) and dental offices in London (n = 298), Canada. The questionnaire included demographic questions and questions to reveal the dentists' perspectives on prosthetic implant treatment between the two-retaining systems. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression (p = 0.05).

RESULTS

Twenty-four private dentists and five dental schools responded to the survey - 62.5% of private practitioners and 60% of universities reported using both systems. A trend was observed in using screw-retained systems by dentists who graduated 5-10 years ago. Straumann, Astra, and Nobel Biocare were the private practices and dental schools' preferred implant systems. The use of platform switching for all cases was selected by 54.2% of the private practitioners and 40% of the dental schools. Resin cement was the private practice's preferred cementation method; the dental schools used glass ionomer and zinc phosphate cement. The multinomial logistic regressions showed no statistical difference between the crown-retaining system chosen and the decision factors. The laboratory technician's recommendations and cost influenced the decision-making process for private dentists. For the universities, perio-restorative outcome, implant position, survival rates, institute preferences, and evidence-based research influenced the crown-retaining system's decision-making process.  CONCLUSION: The Canadian dental schools and private practice reported using both screw- and cement-retaining systems. However, there was a difference in the selection criteria as the universities showed a tendency towards a more research-based approach in their decision, while for the private practices, the technicians' recommendations and cost played a major role in the decision process. It was noted that the implant systems preconized by the Universities were observed to be used in private practices.

Clinical and radiographic performance of late placed and early loaded dental implants with a conditioned hydrophilic surface in posterior mandible sites: A prospective case series with an 8.5- to 9.5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical outcomes by means of implant and prosthetic survival of late placed and early loaded implants with a hydrophilic, moderately rough surface for partially edentulous patients after a follow-up of 8.5 to 9.5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective case series study involving 15 patients with single, late placed and early loaded implants in the posterior mandible was performed. Clinical and radiographical parameters, including biological and technical complications and patient satisfaction, were assessed.

RESULTS

From an initial sample of 15 patients, 12 were included. A total of 16 implants were observed. After a mean follow-up of 9 years and 7 months (SD ± 3.8 months), implant success and survival rate were 100%. The prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and the prosthetic success rate was 93.8% since a major chipping was observed. No biological complications were observed, and the mean modified plaque index was 0.03 (SD ± 0.09) with a mean probing pocket depth of 2.95 mm (SD ± 0.09). A mean marginal bone level (MBL) of 0.04 mm (SD ± 0.88) and a mean VAS of 9.42 (SD ± 0.90) for patient satisfaction were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Late placed and early loaded implants with a moderately rough endosseal surface are a reliable option for rehabilitating partially edentulous patients. An implant survival rate of 100% and a prosthodontic success rate of 93.8% were observed. Patient satisfaction scores were high and peri-implant hard and soft tissues remained healthy. The study findings should be carefully interpreted because of the small sample.

Impact of profile angle of CAD-CAM abutment on the marginal bone loss of implant-supported single-tooth posterior restorations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although the emergence angle has been related to marginal bone loss, information regarding the relationship between the transmucosal configuration of a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) abutment at specific subgingival levels and the amount of marginal bone loss is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the influence of CAD-CAM abutment profile angles, measured at different subgingival positions, on the marginal bone loss of posterior single-tooth implant-supported restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 260 posterior single-tooth implant-supported restorations using CAD-CAM abutments were analyzed in 206 patients. All implants had internal conical seal connections with a platform-switched design. The following data were extracted using digital periapical radiography: emergence profile, profile angle at distance ranges of 0 to 1 mm, 1 to 2 mm, and 2 to 3 mm from the implant-abutment junction, and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). The MBL was measured from the time of delivery of the restorations up to 7 years or more. A linear mixed model was applied to investigate whether there was a significant difference in MBL based on the emergence profile and time, followed by the Bonferroni correction post hoc test. A Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the profile angle and MBL at each distance range. The cut-off points for each distance range were determined by using the c-index, and independent t tests were conducted based on these cut-off values to evaluate the statistical differences (α=.05 for all statistical analyses).

RESULTS

The convex emergence profile exhibited greater MBL than the concave and straight profiles at each follow-up visit (P<.001). A significant correlation was found between the profile angle and MBL in the 0 to 1 mm, 1 to 2 mm distance ranges. However, no significant correlation was found between the profile angle and MBL in the 2 to 3 mm distance range (P>.05). The cut-off points were 34 degrees at the mesial and 28 degrees at the distal in the 0 to 1 mm range, and 33 and 20 degrees at the mesial and distal in the 1 to 2 mm range.

CONCLUSIONS

The profile angle near the implant-abutment junction and the type of emergence profile of the CAD-CAM abutment were closely associated with MBL in implants with internal conical seal connection with a platform switch design.

Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant-Supported Single Crowns Using Solid or Predrilled Blocks in a Fully Digital Workflow: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 33 Months of Follow Up

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical performance of CAD/CAM monolithic implant-supported restorations manufactured using a fully digital workflow and two different types of ceramic blocks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and one patients received single-unit implant-supported restorations at a University predoctoral clinic. All restorations were designed and fabricated using either a predrilled LS₂ block (group P, n = 59) or a conventional solid LS₂ block with an occlusal opening drilled manually prior to crystallization (group M, n = 42). The mean follow-up time after restoration delivery was 18.4 ± 4.8 months (range 12 to 33 months). Patients with less than a 12-month follow-up were excluded. Electronic health records were reviewed to identify number and type of complications during the follow-up time. Clinical outcomes were classified as success, survival, and failure of the restoration. Chi-square tests were used to identify differences in success and survival rates between the groups. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify differences in the number of major and minor complications as well as the total number of complications that were observed among groups.

RESULTS

Overall success and survival rates were 80.2% and 97%, respectively. Seventy one restorations (70.3%) were complication-free. There were no significant differences between the groups with regards to the number of complications or success and survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-unit CAD/CAM monolithic implant-supported restorations that are fabricated in a fully digital workflow present relatively high complication rates and moderate short-term clinical outcomes. Clinical studies with longer follow-up times are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of these restorations.