Julia-Gabriela Wittneben

Clinical Performance of Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions— A Systematic Review

PURPOSE To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression. RESULTS From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.

Complication and Failure Rates with Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Single Crowns: A 10‐Year Retrospective Study

PURPOSE Clinical studies related to the long-term outcomes with implant-supported reconstructions are still sparse. The aim of this 10-year retrospective study was to assess the rate of mechanical/technical complications and failures with implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs) in a large cohort of partially edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS The comprehensive multidisciplinary examination consisted of a medical/dental history, clinical examination, and a radiographic analysis. Prosthodontic examination evaluated the implant-supported reconstructions for mechanical/technical complications and failures, occlusal analysis, presence/absence of attrition, and location, extension, and retention type. RESULTS Out of three hundred ninety seven fixed reconstructions in three hundred three patients, two hundred sixty eight were SCs and one hundred twenty seven were FDPs. Of these three hundred ninety seven implant-supported reconstructions, 18 had failed, yielding a failure rate of 4.5% and a survival rate of 95.5% after a mean observation period of 10.75 years (range: 8.4-13.5 years). The most frequent complication was ceramic chipping (20.31%) followed by occlusal screw loosening (2.57%) and loss of retention (2.06%). No occlusal screw fracture, one abutment loosening, and two abutment fractures were noted. This resulted in a total mechanical/technical complication rate of 24.7%. The prosthetic success rate over a mean follow-up time of 10.75 years was 70.8%. Generalized attrition and FDPs were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of ceramic fractures when compared with SCs. Cantilever extensions, screw retention, anterior versus posterior, and gender did not influence the chipping rate. CONCLUSIONS After a mean exposure time of 10.75 years, high survival rates for reconstructions supported by Sand-blasted Large-grit Acid-etched implants can be expected. Ceramic chipping was the most frequent complication and was increased in dentitions with attrition and in FDPs compared with SCs.

Peri-implant soft tissue conditioning with provisional restorations in the esthetic zone: the dynamic compression technique.

An optimal esthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This article introduces a clinical method, the dynamic compression technique, of conditioning soft tissues around bone-level implants with provisional restorations in the esthetic zone. The technique has several goals: to establish an adequate emergence profile; to recreate a balanced mucosa course and level in harmony with the gingiva of the adjacent teeth, including papilla height/width, localization of the mucosal zenith and the tissue profiles triangular shape; as well as to establish an accurate proximal contact area with the adjacent tooth/implant crown.

A systematic review of the clinical performance of tooth-retained and implant-retained double crown prostheses with a follow-up of ≥ 3 years.

PURPOSE The objective of this review was to systematically screen the literature for data related to the survival and complication rates observed with dental or implant double crown abutments and removable prostheses under functional loading for at least 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of the dental literature from January 1966 to December 2009 was performed in electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) as well as by an extensive hand search to investigate the clinical outcomes of double crown reconstructions. RESULTS From the total of 2412 titles retrieved from the search, 65 were selected for full-text review. Subsequently, 17 papers were included for data extraction. An estimation of the cumulative survival and complication rates was not feasible due to the lack of detailed information. Tooth survival rates for telescopic abutment teeth ranged from 82.5% to 96.5% after an observation period of 3.4 to 6 years, and for tooth-supported double crown retained dentures from 66.7% to 98.6% after an observation period of 6 to 10 years. The survival rates of implants were between 97.9% and 100% and for telescopic-retained removable dental prostheses with two mandibular implants, 100% after 3.0 and 10.4 years. The major biological complications affecting the tooth abutments were gingival inflammation, periodontal disease, and caries. The most frequent technical complications were loss of cementation and loss of facings. CONCLUSIONS The main findings of this review are: (I) double crown tooth abutments and dentures demonstrated a wide range of survival rates. (II) Implant-supported mandibular overdentures demonstrated a favorable long-term prognosis. (III) A greater need for prosthetic maintenance is required for both tooth-supported and implant-supported reconstructions. (IV) Future areas of research would involve designing appropriate longitudinal studies for comparisons of survival and complication rates of different reconstruction designs.

Screw retained vs. cement retained implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis

A fixed dental prosthesis can be secured to an endosseous implant via cementation (using a provisional or definitive cement) on an implant abutment that is screw retained to the implant or directly in the implant via screw retention. The clinical decision as to which retention system best suits the individual patient depends on several factors. The aim of this review is to present a detailed overview of the factors potentially influencing whether to choose screw retention or cement retention. These factors include the individual indication, advantages and disadvantages of the different retention mechanisms, the retention provided, retrievability, provisionalization, esthetics and clinical performance, including failures and complications. The results of recently published systematic reviews on this topic are discussed and an overview is provided. A decision tree is presented to facilitate the clinical selection of the retention type. This overview concludes that the choice of retention type (screw retained or cement retained) might not influence the overall survival of the implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis, but may be responsible for the development of certain complications. The decision may depend on technical feasibility and on weighing the pros and cons.

Esthetic Outcome of Implant Supported Crowns With and Without Peri‐Implant Conditioning Using Provisional Fixed Prosthesis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background Achieving an optimal esthetic result using dental implants is challenging. Fixed implant-supported provisional crowns are often used to customize the emergence profile and to individualize the surrounding peri-implant soft tissue. Purpose The objective of this study is to evaluate whether the use of a provisional implant-supported crown leads to an esthetic benefit on implants that are placed in the esthetic zone. The null hypothesis is that there is no-difference between the two study groups. Material and methods Twenty single implants (Bone Level, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were inserted in consecutive patients. After reopening, a randomization process assigned them to either cohort group 1: a provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning using the “dynamic compression technique” or cohort group 2: without a provisional. Implants were finally restored with an all-ceramic crown. Follow-up examinations were performed at 3 and 12 months including implant success and survival, clinical, and radiographic parameters. Results After 1 year all implants successfully integrated, mean values of combined modPES and WES were 16.7 for group 1 and 10.5 for Group 2. This was statistically significant. Mean bone loss after 1 year was −0.09 and −0.08 for groups 1 and 2, respectively, without being statistically significant. Conclusion A provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning does improve the final esthetic result.

Volumetric Calculation of Supraimplant Submergence Profile After Soft Tissue Conditioning with a Provisional Restoration.

The objective of this study was to digitally analyze the emergence profile changes before and after soft tissue conditioning with fixed-implant provisional restorations. Impressions were taken with individualized posts to build casts for 20 patients. Optical scanning of the modulated mucosa was performed from the model situations in combination with the original healing abutments. Emergence profile extension revealed a mean volume of 41.9 mm3 for central sites and 25.8 mm3 for laterals. In addition, linear calculations of supraimplant mucosal profile changes presented a median enlargement of 8.2 mm in the mesial-distal and 7.2 mm in the buccal-lingual direction for central incisors and 6.8 mm (mesial-distal) and 6.5 mm (buccal-lingual) for lateral incisors. The change was more than double compared with the initial profile of the healing abutments.

A novel cryo-mechanical approach for the removal of blocked nonretrievable implant components.

The removal of nonretrievable implant components represents a challenge in implant dentistry. The mechanical approach involves the risk of damaging the implant connection or the bone-to-implant interface. This case report describes a cryo-mechanical approach for the safe removal of a nonretrievable implant component. A patient had an implant surgically placed in a private practice. When the patient returned to the restorative dentist to make a definitive impression, the healing abutment could not be loosened. The patient was referred to the Division of Fixed Prosthodontics (University of Bern, Switzerland), where the stripped screw hole was enlarged with a special drill from a service kit of the implant provider. Although an extraction bolt was screwed into the opening and the torque ratchet was activated, the healing abutment would not loosen. A novel approach was attempted whereby the healing abutment was cooled with dry ice (CO2). The cooling effect seemingly caused shrinkage of the healing abutment and a reduction of the connection forces between the implant and the nonretrievable component. The approach of creating an access hole for the application of reverse torque via the extraction bolt in combination with the thermal effect led to the successful removal of the blocked component. Neither the implant connection nor the bone-to-implant interface was damaged. The combined cryo-mechanical procedure allowed the implant to be successfully restored.