An Insight Performance of Zirconia Implant Abutment: A Systematic Review and Meta?Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

To determine the clinical performance of zirconia abutment (ZA) by comparing with a titanium abutment (TA) and sub?mucosal?modified zirconia abutment. A systematic search was conducted to retrieve eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Medline, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. A search was further divided in two parts. Part I comprises eligible RCTs between zirconia abutment and titanium abutment, and part II included RCTs of zirconia abutment with sub?mucosal modified, pink?veneered glass ceramic versus non?veneered zirconia abutment. Esthetic, biological, and abutment survival was a primary outcome, and technical complications were included as an additional outcome. Fifteen eligible RCTs (Part I: N = 9 and Part II: N = 6) were evaluated, and a total of 362 abutments in 364 subjects were analysed for outcome variables. A sub?group meta?analysis reported no significant difference for Esthetic outcome. However, the overall mean (p =0.03) was higher for zirconia group in those of thin gingival phenotype. Spectrophotometric evaluation of peri?implant mucosal Esthetic does not show any significant difference. Similarly, pink?veneered versus non?veneered group reported no significant difference for thin (<2 mm) and thick (>2 mm) mucosal attachment. Biological outcome does not show any significant difference for comparable groups in both parts. There is marginally lower abutment survival for internally connected zirconia abutment (ZA: 95.4% TA: 100%). Zirconia abutment exhibited excellent Esthetic compared to titanium abutment in those of thin gingival phenotype. Sub?mucosa veneering of zirconia abutment with pink glass c

Esthetic outcome for maxillary anterior single implants assessed by different dental specialists

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the esthetic outcome of maxillary anterior single implants by comparing the esthetic perception of dental professionals and patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with single implants in the esthetic zone were enrolled in this study. Dentists of four different dental specialties (Three orthodontists, three oral surgeons, three prosthodontists, and three periodontists) evaluated the pink esthetic score (PES)/white esthetic score (WES) for 23 implant-supported single restorations. The satisfactions of the patients on the esthetic outcome of the treatment have been evaluated according to the visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The mean total PES/WES was 12.26 ± 4.76. The mean PES was 6.45 ± 2.78 and mean WES was 5.80 ± 2.82. There was a statistically significant difference among the different specialties for WES (P<.01) and Total PES/WES (P<.01). Prosthodontists were found to have assigned poorer ratings among the other specialties, while oral surgeons gave the higher ratings than periodontists, orthodontists, and prosthodontists. CONCLUSION: Prosthodontists seemed to be stricter when assessing aesthetic outcome among other specialties. Moreover, a clear correlation existed between dentists' and patients' esthetic perception, thereby providing rationales for involving patients in the treatment plan to achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction.

The level of buccal gingival margin around single and two adjacent implant restorations: a preliminary result

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Little information is available about the buccal gingival level of multiple implant restorations. PURPOSE: This study was aimed to evaluate the relationship between width and height of buccal soft tissue around single and 2 adjacent implant restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four implant restoration groups (first and second molars, single second molars, posterior single restorations between teeth, and anterior single restorations between teeth) were randomly chosen from one dental institute. Each group comprised of 6 patients. After 6 months of function, silicone impressions were taken and stone models were fabricated for each restoration group. The stone models were cut in bucco-lingual direction at the most apical point of buccal gingival margin. The height and width of buccal supra-implant soft tissue were measured. One way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests were performed to analyze the data obtained (P < .05). RESULTS: The most unfavorable width-height ratio was noted for the group, which was comprised of the second molar in the multiple adjacent (first and second molar) implant-supported restorations. The group also resulted in the shorter height of buccal supra-implant mucosa rather than that of anterior single implant restorations between natural teeth. CONCLUSION: To achieve a favorable level of buccal gingival margin, greater thickness of buccal supra-implant mucosa is required for the implant restorations without a neighboring natural tooth compared to the implant restorations next to a natural tooth.