Dean Morton1, German Gallucci2, Wei-Shao Lin1, Bjarni Pjetursson3, Waldemar Polido4, Stefan Roehling5, Irena Sailer6, Tara Aghaloo7, Hugo Albera8, Lauren Bohner9, Vedrana Braut10,11, Daniel Buser10, Stephen Chen12, Anthony Dawson13, Steven Eckert14, Michael Gahlert15,5, Adam Hamilton2, Robert Jaffin16, Christian Jarry17, Banu Karayazgan18, Juhani Laine19, William Martin20, Lira Rahman11, Andreas Schlegel15,21, Makato Shiota22, Charlotte Stilwell23,24, Christiaan Vorster25, Anja Zembic26, Wenjie Zhou2,27. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana. 5. Clinic for Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, High-Tech Research Center, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, California. 8. Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina. 9. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 10. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 11. Private Practice, Rijeka, Croatia. 12. Private Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 13. Private Practice, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 14. Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 15. Private Practice, Munich, Germany. 16. Private Practice, Hackensack, New Jersey. 17. Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland. 18. Department of Prosthodontics, Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey. 19. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, Turku University Hospital, Yurku, Finland. 20. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 21. Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 22. Department of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. 23. Private Practice, London, UK. 24. Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 25. Private Practice, Somerset West, South Africa. 26. Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 27. Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS: A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.
OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS: A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.
Authors: Ole Oelerich; Johannes Kleinheinz; Lauren Bohner; Vera Wiesmüller; Marcel Hanisch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Edmara T P Bergamo; Everardo N S de Araújo-Júnior; Adolfo C O Lopes; Paulo G Coelho; Abbas Zahoui; Ernesto B Benalcázar Jalkh; Estevam A Bonfante Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.411