ABSTRACT
The objectives of the study group focused on the following main topics related to the performance of one- and two-piece ceramic implants: defining bone-implant-contact percentages and its measurement methods, evaluating the pink esthetic score as an esthetic outcome parameter after immediate implantation, recognizing the different results of ceramic implant designs, as redefined by the German Association of Oral Implantology, incorporating the patient report outcome measure to include satisfaction and improvement in oral health-related quality of life, and conducting preclinical studies to address existing gaps in ceramic implants. During the Joint Congress for Ceramic Implantology (2022), the study group evaluated 17 clinical trials published between 2015 and 2021. After extensive discussions and multiple closed sessions, consensus statements and recommendations were developed, incorporating all approved modifications. A one-piece implant design features a coronal part that is fused to the implant body or interfaces with the post-abutment restoration platform, undergoing transmucosal healing. Long-term evaluations of this implant design have been supported by established favorable clinical evidence. Inaccuracies in the pink esthetic score and bone-implant-contact percentages were managed by establishing control groups for preclinical studies and randomizing clinical trials. The patient-reported outcome measures were adjusted to include an individual visual analog scale, collected from each clinical study, that quantified improved oral health and quality of life. Preclinical investigations should focus on examining the spread of ceramic debris and the impact of heat generation on tissue and cellular levels during drilling. Further technical advancements should prioritize wound management and developing safe drilling protocols.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation was to determine the clinical and radiographic outcome of a one-piece alumina-toughened zirconia (ATZ) oral implant for single tooth replacement after 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 27 patients received one ATZ implant each in a one-stage implant surgery with immediate temporization. Standardized radiographs were taken at implant insertion and after 1 year to monitor peri-implant bone loss. Several soft tissue parameters were evaluated at prosthesis insertion and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Three patients did not receive a prosthetic reconstruction due to implant loss during the healing period. As a result, 24 patients were seen at the 1-year follow-up, giving a cumulative survival rate of 88.9%. The average marginal bone loss after 1 year was 0.77 mm. Only two implants (8.3%) lost at least 2 mm bone, whereas none of the implants lost more than 3 mm. Probing depth and clinical attachment level increased over 1 year at the implant sites, whereas gingival recession remained stable. Mombelli's bleeding and plaque indices showed no statistically significant change within the first year. CONCLUSION: Owing to a total of 27 inserted implants, three failures within the first 4 months after implant placement carry weight. Therefore, the cumulative survival rate of the presented ceramic implant was slightly below reported survival rates of titanium implants when immediately restored. The recorded radiographic bone loss and peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed promising short-term results. The presented ATZ implant seems to be a candidate for clinical usage.
