Evaluation of the surgical and prosthetic success of All-on-4 restorations: a retrospective cohort study of provisional vs. definitive immediate restorations

Outcomes that may affect implant and prosthesis survival and complications in maxillary fixed prosthesis supported by four or six implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To investigate whether the clinical and radiographical outcomes are affected when four or six implants support the maxillary fixed complete denture (FCD).

Materials and methods

This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226432) and followed the PRISMA guidelines. The focused PICO question was, "For an edentulous maxillary patient rehabilitated with an implant-supported fixed prosthesis, do the clinical and radiographical outcomes differ when four or six implants support the prosthesis ". A thorough search of the relevant studies was designed and performed electronically. The survival rate of implant and prosthesis, marginal bone loss, and complications (mechanical and biological) were the primary outcomes, whereas implant distribution and using the surgical guide, follow-up, and framework material were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

Results

Out of 1099 articles initially retrieved, 53 clearly stated the outcomes of interest and were included in this study. There were no significant differences in implant and prosthesis survival, technical/mechanical complications, and biological complications between the 4-implant group (4-IG) and the 6-implant group (6-IG). However, marginal bone loss (MBL) was significantly higher in the 4-IG (p < 0.01). The surgical guide and follow-up period did not significantly affect implant/prosthesis survival. Additionally, using the CAD/CAM milled framework and anteroposterior implant distribution were associated with significantly higher implant survival in the 6-IG (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicated that having a greater number of implants, as seen in the 6-implant group, can lead to a decrease in technical and biological complications and reduce marginal bone loss. It is worth noting that factors such as using CAD/CAM frameworks and the anteroposterior distribution of implants were recognized as important in improving implant survival rates when more implants are present.

Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations with and without scanbodies splinting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two maxillary models were designed and fabricated to receive an all-on-four implant retained. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30 and Group 2; 45). Each group was then divided into three subgroups according to the type of IOS used: Subgroup C; Primescan, subgroup T; Trios4, and subgroup M; Medit i600. Then each subgroup was divided into two divisions according to scanning technique; division S: splinted and division N: nonsplinted. Ten scans were made by each scanner for every division. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software.

RESULTS

Angulation had no significant effect on both the trueness (p = 0.854) and precision (p = 0.347). Splinting had a significant effect on trueness and precision (p < 0.001). Scanner type had a significant effect on trueness (p < 0.001) and precision (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between trueness of Trios 4 (112.15 ± 12.85) and Primescan (106.75 ± 22.58). However, there was a significant difference when compared to trueness of Medit i600 (158.50 ± 27.65). For the precision results Cerec Primescan showed the highest precision (95.45 ± 33.21). There was a significant difference between the three scanners, precision of Trios4 (109.72 ± 19.24) and Medit i600 (121.21 ± 17.26).

CONCLUSION

Cerec Primescan has higher trueness and precision than Trios 4 and Medit i600 in full arch implants scanning. Splinting the scanbodies improve the accuracy of full arch implants scanning.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cerec Primescan and 3Shape Trios 4 can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis when scanbodies are splinted using a modular chain device.

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the accuracy of different laboratory scanners (LS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two maxillary models that are designed to receive an all-on-four implant retained prosthesis were fabricated then scanned using five different LS. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30° and group 2; 45°). Each group was then subdivided into five subgroups according to the type of LS, subgroup T; Medit T710, subgroup I; IneosX5, subgroup E; 3ShapeE4, subgroup A; Autoscan DS-Mix, and subgroup M; Ceramill Map600. An industrial 3D scanner was used as reference scanner, then each model was scanned with 5 LS 10 times. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic 3D analysis software.

RESULTS

Both scanner type and implant angle had a significant effect on the trueness (p < 0.001). Significant interaction was found between the scanner type and implant angle (p < 0.001). For scanner type tukeys post hoc test revealed highest trueness with the 3Shape E4 (21.3 ± 2.1) and the medit T710 (22.6 ± 2.1) and least trueness with the shining 3D autoscan ds-mix (33.8 ± 3.0). Significantly better trueness was observed with the 30° than the 45° angle. Regarding precision, two-way ANOVA revealed significant effect of the scanner type only (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the 3Shape E4, medit T710, Ineos X5, and the Ceramill map600. However, all showed significantly higher precision values when compared to shining 3D autoscan ds-mix.

CONCLUSIONS

All tested scanners showed results within the clinically acceptable range with 3ShapeE4 and Medit T710 showing the highest accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested scanners can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis.