Private Practice, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Section of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Sep;34 Suppl 26:104-111. doi: 10.1111/clr.14148.
Group-2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology». Focused research questions were: (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses.
Literature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted.
Additively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw-retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1-year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant-supported multi-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3-year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates.
For interim tooth-colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long-term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi-unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications.
第 2 组审查了“技术”领域的科学证据。重点研究问题是:(1)种植体修复体的加法制造与减法制造;(2)预制与定制基台比较的存活率、并发症和美观性;(3)后牙种植体支持的多单位固定义齿的存活率。
系统地筛选文献,并根据 PRISMA 指南对 67 篇出版物进行了严格审查,结果进行了三项系统评价。共识陈述提交全体会议讨论,经过修改后被接受。
对氧化锆和聚合物的加法制造种植体修复体的边缘/内部适应性和机械性能进行了研究,但没有明确的结果支持一种技术或材料。与定制基台相比,用于螺钉固位种植体单冠的钛基底台在 1 年存活率方面没有显著差异。烤瓷熔附金属、饰面和整体氧化锆种植体支持的多单位后固定义齿的 3 年存活率相似,而饰面修复体表现出最高的每年陶瓷断裂和剥落率。
对于临时牙色种植体单冠,加法制造和减法制造都是可行的技术。添加剂生产的修复体的临床性能仍有待研究。与其他类型的基台相比,钛基底台的种植体单冠具有相似的临床性能;然而,需要 RCT 的长期临床数据。在规划阶段就应该考虑基台的选择。数字化规划有助于实现包括基台选择在内的修复体设计的 3D 可视化。在后牙区,建议使用整体氧化锆作为多单位种植体修复体的首选材料,以减少技术并发症。