Irena Sailer

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal–ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: fixed dental prostheses.

OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to compare them with those of metal-ceramic FDPs. METHODS An electronic MEDLINE and Dental Global Publication Research System search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction was performed independently by three reviewers. Failure rates were analyzed using standard and random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year survival proportions. RESULTS The search provided 3473 titles for single crowns and FDPs and resulted in 100 abstracts for all-ceramic FDPs. Full-text analysis was performed for 39 articles, resulting in nine studies of ceramic FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The data on survival and complication rates of metal-ceramic FDPs were obtained from a previous systematic review of Tan et al. (2004) and the updated version from the same authors (Pjetursson et al. 2007). In Poisson regression meta-analysis, the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic FDPs was significantly (P<0.0001) higher with 94.4% [95 confidence interval (CI): 91.1-96.5%] than the survival of all-ceramic FDPs, being 88.6% (95 CI: 78.3-94.2%). The frequencies of material fractures (framework and veneering material) were significantly (P<0.0001) higher for all-ceramic FDPs (6.5% and 13.6%) compared with those of metal-ceramic FDPs (1.6% and 2.9%). Other technical complications like loss of retention and biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality were similar for the two types of reconstructions over the 5-year observation period. CONCLUSION Based on the present systematic review of all-ceramic FDPs, significantly lower survival rates at 5 years were seen compared with metal-ceramic FDPs. The most frequent reason for failure of FDPs made out of glass-ceramics or glass-infiltrated ceramics was fracture of the reconstruction (framework and veneering ceramic). However, when zirconia was used as framework material, the reasons for failure were primarily biological and technical complications other than framework fracture.

Comparison of survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal ceramic reconstructions - A systematic review: Part I. Single crowns

OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to compare them with those of metal-ceramic FDPs. METHODS An electronic MEDLINE and Dental Global Publication Research System search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction was performed independently by three reviewers. Failure rates were analyzed using standard and random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year survival proportions. RESULTS The search provided 3473 titles for single crowns and FDPs and resulted in 100 abstracts for all-ceramic FDPs. Full-text analysis was performed for 39 articles, resulting in nine studies of ceramic FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The data on survival and complication rates of metal-ceramic FDPs were obtained from a previous systematic review of Tan et al. (2004) and the updated version from the same authors (Pjetursson et al. 2007). In Poisson regression meta-analysis, the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic FDPs was significantly (P<0.0001) higher with 94.4% [95 confidence interval (CI): 91.1-96.5%] than the survival of all-ceramic FDPs, being 88.6% (95 CI: 78.3-94.2%). The frequencies of material fractures (framework and veneering material) were significantly (P<0.0001) higher for all-ceramic FDPs (6.5% and 13.6%) compared with those of metal-ceramic FDPs (1.6% and 2.9%). Other technical complications like loss of retention and biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality were similar for the two types of reconstructions over the 5-year observation period. CONCLUSION Based on the present systematic review of all-ceramic FDPs, significantly lower survival rates at 5 years were seen compared with metal-ceramic FDPs. The most frequent reason for failure of FDPs made out of glass-ceramics or glass-infiltrated ceramics was fracture of the reconstruction (framework and veneering ceramic). However, when zirconia was used as framework material, the reasons for failure were primarily biological and technical complications other than framework fracture.

A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions

OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications associated with ceramic abutments and to compare them with those of metal abutments. METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized-controlled clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective studies providing information on ceramic and metal abutments with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction was performed independently by three reviewers. Failure rates were analyzed using standard and random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year survival proportions. RESULTS Twenty-nine clinical and 22 laboratory studies were selected from an initial yield of 7136 titles and data were extracted. The estimated 5-year survival rate of ceramic abutments was 99.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 93.8-99.9%] and 97.4% (95% CI: 96-98.3%) for metal abutments. The estimated cumulative incidence of technical complications after 5 years was 6.9% (95% CI: 3.5-13.4%) for ceramic abutments and 15.9% (95% CI: 11.6-21.5%) for metal abutments. Abutment screw loosening was the most frequent technical problem, occurring at an estimated cumulative incidence after 5 years of 5.1% (95% CI: 3.3-7.7%). All-ceramic crowns supported by ceramic abutments exhibited similar annual fracture rates as metal-ceramic crowns supported by metal abutments. The cumulative incidence of biological complications after 5 years was estimated at 5.2% (95% CI: 0.4-52%) for ceramic and 7.7% (95% CI: 4.7-12.5%) for metal abutments. Esthetic complications tended to be more frequent at metal abutments. A meta-analysis of the laboratory data was impossible due to the non-standardized test methods of the studies included. CONCLUSION The 5-year survival rates estimated from annual failure rates appeared to be similar for ceramic and metal abutments. The information included in this review did not provide evidence for differences of the technical and biological outcomes of ceramic and metal abutments. However, the information for ceramic abutments was limited in the number of studies and abutments analyzed as well as the accrued follow-up time. Standardized methods for the analysis of abutment strength are needed.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs)

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poissons regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.

Randomized‐controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single‐tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3‐year results

OBJECTIVES The aim was to test whether or not zirconia abutments exhibit the same survival and technical/biological outcome as titanium abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty-two patients receiving 40 single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions were included. The implant sites were randomly assigned to 20 zirconia and 20 titanium abutments. All-ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns were fabricated. At baseline, 6, 12 and 36 months, the reconstructions were examined for technical and biological problems. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque control record (PCR) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at abutments (test) and analogous contralateral teeth (control). Standardized radiographs of the implants were made and the bone level (BL) was measured referring to the implant shoulder on mesial (mBL) and distal sides (dBL). The difference of color (DeltaE) of the peri-implant mucosa and the gingiva of control teeth was assessed with a spectrophotometer. The data were statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney Rank and Students unpaired t-tests. RESULTS Eighteen patients with 18 zirconia and 10 titanium abutments were examined at a mean follow-up of 36 months (range 31.5-53.3 months). No fracture of an abutment or loss of a reconstruction was found. Hence, both exhibited 100% survival. At two metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments chipping of the veneering ceramic occurred. No difference of the biological outcome of zirconia and titanium abutments was observed: PPD (meanPPD(ZrO(2)) 3.2 +/- 1 mm, mPPD(Ti) 3.4 +/- 0.5 mm), PCR (mPCR(ZrO(2)) 0.1 +/- 0.2, mPCR(Ti) 0.1 +/- 0.2) and BOP (mBOP(ZrO(2)) 0.4 +/- 0.4, mBOP(Ti) 0.2 +/- 0.3). Furthermore, the BL was similar at implants supporting zirconia and titanium abutments (mBL(ZrO(2)) 1.7 +/- 1, dBL(ZrO(2)) 1.6 +/- 1; mBL(Ti) 2 +/- 1, dBL(Ti) 2.1 +/- 1). Both, zirconia and titanium abutments induced a similar amount of discoloration of the mucosa compared with the gingiva at natural teeth (DeltaE(ZrO(2)) 9.3 +/- 3.8, DeltaE(Ti) 6.8 +/- 3.8). CONCLUSIONS At 3 years, zirconia and titanium abutments exhibited same survival and technical, biological and esthetical outcomes.

Cemented and screw‐retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates

OBJECTIVES To assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications of cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions. METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective and retrospective studies giving information on cemented and screw-retained single-unit and multiple-unit implant reconstructions with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction were performed independently by three reviewers. Failure rates were analyzed using Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals of failure rates and 5-year survival proportions. RESULTS Fifty-nine clinical studies were selected from an initial yield of 4511 titles and the data were extracted. For cemented single crowns the estimated 5-year reconstruction survival was 96.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.8-97.7%), for screw-retained single crowns it was 89.3% (95% CI: 64.9-97.1%) (P = 0.091 for difference). The 5-year survival for cemented partial fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) was 96.9% (95% CI: 90.8-99%), similar to the one for screw-retained partial FDPs with 98% (95% CI: 96.2-99%) (P = 0.47). For cemented full-arch FDPs the 5-year survival was 100% (95% CI: 88.9-100%), which was somewhat higher than that for screw-retained FDPs with 95.8% (95% CI: 91.9-97.9%) (P = 0.54). The estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of technical complications at cemented single crowns was 11.9% and 24.4% at screw-retained crowns. At the partial and full-arch FDPs, in contrast, a trend to less complication at the screw-retained was found than at the cemented ones (partial FDPs cemented 24.5%, screw-retained 22.1%; full-arch FDPs cemented 62.9%, screw-retained 54.1%). Biological complications like marginal bone loss >2 mm occurred more frequently at cemented crowns (5-year incidence: 2.8%) than at screw-retained ones (5-year incidence: 0%). CONCLUSION Both types of reconstructions influenced the clinical outcomes in different ways, none of the fixation methods was clearly advantageous over the other. Cemented reconstructions exhibited more serious biological complications (implant loss, bone loss >2 mm), screw-retained reconstructions exhibited more technical problems. Screw-retained reconstructions are more easily retrievable than cemented reconstructions and, therefore, technical and eventually biological complications can be treated more easily. For this reason and for their apparently higher biological compatibility, these reconstructions seem to be preferable.

Improvements in Implant Dentistry over the Last Decade: Comparison of Survival and Complication Rates in Older and Newer Publications

PURPOSE The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the survival and complication rates of implant-supported prostheses reported in studies published in the year 2000 and before, to those reported in studies published after the year 2000. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify 139 prospective and retrospective studies on implant-supported prostheses. The included studies were divided in two groups: a group of 31 older studies published in the year 2000 or before, and a group of 108 newer studies published after the year 2000. Survival and complication rates were calculated using Poisson regression models, and multivariable robust Poisson regression was used to formally compare the outcomes of older and newer studies. RESULTS The 5-year survival rate of implant-supported prostheses was significantly increased in newer studies compared with older studies. The overall survival rate increased from 93.5% to 97.1%. The survival rate for cemented prostheses increased from 95.2% to 97.9%; for screw-retained reconstruction, from 77.6% to 96.8%; for implant-supported single crowns, from 92.6% to 97.2%; and for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), from 93.5% to 96.4%. The incidence of esthetic complications decreased in more recent studies compared with older ones, but the incidence of biologic complications was similar. The results for technical complications were inconsistent. There was a significant reduction in abutment or screw loosening by implant-supported FDPs. On the other hand, the total number of technical complications and the incidence of fracture of the veneering material was significantly increased in the newer studies. To explain the increased rate of complications, minor complications are probably reported in more detail in the newer publications. CONCLUSIONS The results of the present systematic review demonstrated a positive learning curve in implant dentistry, represented in higher survival rates and lower complication rates reported in more recent clinical studies. The incidence of esthetic, biologic, and technical complications, however, is still high. Hence, it is important to identify these complications and their etiology to make implant treatment even more predictable in the future.

Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of the review were (1) to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level impressions in cases with internal and external connection abutments/reconstructions, and (2) to evaluate the incidence of technical complications of internal and external connection metal- or zirconia-based abutments and single-implant reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS A MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify English language publications in dental journals related to each of the two topics by inserting the appropriate keywords. These electronic searches were complemented by a hand search of the January 2009 to January 2012 issues of the following journals: Clinical Oral Implants Research, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, The International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. RESULTS Seven in vitro studies were included in the review to evaluate the accuracy of implant-level accuracy. No clinical study was found. There was no study that directly compared the influence of internal and external implant connections for abutments/reconstructions on the accuracy of implant-level impressions. All in vitro studies reported separately on the two connection designs and they did not use same protocol and, therefore, the data could not be compared. Fourteen clinical studies on metal-based abutments/reconstructions and five clinical studies on zirconia-based abutments/reconstructions satisfied the inclusion criteria and, therefore, were included in the review to evaluate the incidence of technical complications. The most frequent mechanical complication found in both implant connection design when employing metal abutments/reconstructions was screw loosening. CONCLUSIONS Implant-level impression accuracy may be influenced by a number of variables (implant connection type, connection design, disparallelism between multiple implants, impression material and technique employed). Implant divergence appears to affect negatively impression accuracy when using internal connection implants. Based on the sparse literature evaluating the incidence of technical complications of metal or zirconia abutments/reconstructions, it was concluded that: The incidence of fracture of metal-based and zirconia-based abutments and that of abutment screws does not seem to be influenced by the type of connection. Loosening of abutment screws was the most frequently occurring technical complication. The type of connection seems to have an influence on the incidence of the screw loosening: more loose screws were reported for externally connected implant systems for both types of materials. However, proper preload may decrease the incidence of such a complication.

Clinical study of the internal gaps of zirconia and metal frameworks for fixed partial dentures

The aim of this clinical study was to compare the internal gaps between abutment teeth and posterior fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated utilizing milled zirconia and cast gold-alloy frameworks. As part of an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial, 32 three-unit FPDs (16 zirconia and 16 metal-ceramic) in 25 patients were randomly selected for adaptation measurements. During the bisque-stage ceramic try-in, an A-silicone impression material was placed between the abutment teeth and the framework. The internal gap, corresponding to the thickness of the replica, was measured under magnification at the following locations: cervical, axial, and occlusal (cusp-tips and central). The internal gaps of FPDs with zirconia frameworks were significantly larger in cervical, axial, and centro-occlusal regions (cervical: 189.6 +/- 71.8 mum vs. 118.6 +/- 31.5 mum; axial: 140.5 +/- 38.3 mum vs. 95.7 +/- 18.1 mum; and centro-occlusal: 192.0 +/- 66.5 mum vs. 153.1 +/- 69.8 mum). The cervical gaps next to the pontics were significantly larger compared with those of the outer walls in both types of FPDs (zirconia: mean difference 67.7 +/- 114.7 mum; metal-ceramic: mean difference 30.0 +/- 71.2 mum). Posterior three-unit FPDs incorporating milled zirconia frameworks exhibited larger internal gaps than those constructed using conventional metal-ceramic techniques.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 10 studies from a previous systematic review [1]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poissons regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Forty studies reporting on 1796 metal-ceramic and 1110 all-ceramic FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%). The estimated survival rate of reinforced glass ceramic FDPs was 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4-94.0%), the survival rate of glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs was 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3-94.2%) and the survival rate of densely sintered zirconia FDPs was 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8-94.0%) in 5 years of function. Even though the survival rate of all-ceramic FDPs was lower than for metal-ceramic FDPs, the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (p=0.05). A significantly higher incidence of caries in abutment teeth was observed for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs. Significantly more framework fractures were reported for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs (8.0%) and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (12.9%) compared to metal-ceramic FDPs (0.6%) and densely sintered zirconia FDPs (1.9%) in 5 years in function. However, the incidence of ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly (p=0.018 and 0.028 respectively) higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to all other types of FDPs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of all types of all-ceramic FDPs were lower than those reported for metal-ceramic FDPs. The incidence of framework fractures was significantly higher for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs and infiltrated glass ceramic FDPs, and the incidence for ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs.