ABSTRACT
AIM: Implant therapy in partially edentulous patients has become the most adapted and predictable treatment modality. The success rate of implants has been measured in terms of esthetic, biological, and technical factors such as radiographic bone loss, prosthetic complications, and stability. Despite the existence of several indices for the esthetic assessment of implant crowns, a need for functional evaluation of the implant crown with an objective and reproducible score has arisen. The study aims to validate the reproducibility of the functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) and the influence exerted by different dental specialties while evaluating posterior single-unit implant crowns. STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN: This was a prospective clinical study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with cement-retained single-implant crowns in the posterior region of the jaws were included. Eight examiners, two prosthodontists, two periodontists, two oral surgeons, and two orthodontists evaluated 15 photographs of single-unit implant crowns during the 1-year follow-up examination. The examiners assessed the photographs for FIPS, which includes five parameters for objectively evaluating the single-unit implant crowns. Assessments were performed twice at a gap of 4 weeks. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Pearson's correlation with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for the intra-examiner and the Kruskal-Wallis test for inter-examiner reproducibility. RESULTS: The mean total FIPS scores for all included examiners were 7.133 for time T1 and 7.074 for time T2, showing a strong Pearson correlation coefficient for intra-examiner reproducibility. No significant difference was analyzed among different specialties with statistically significant values of the Kruskal-Wallis test. CONCLUSION: Intra- and inter-examiner analysis showed very consistent results during the reproducibility assessment of FIPS. The results validated the use of FIPS as a long-term predictive functional evaluation tool for the single-implant crowns in posterior sites irrespective of the effect of different dental specialties. It could be used for risk estimation and prognosis for long-term survival and performance of implant crowns.
Subject(s)
Crowns , Humans , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Female , Male , Specialties, Dental , Dental Implants, Single-Tooth , Esthetics, Dental , Adult , Middle Aged , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported , Prosthodontics/methodsABSTRACT
Implant-supported prostheses could serve as a reliable restorative option for partial edentulism. Various restorative materials have been utilized in fabricating these prostheses, impacting both esthetics and peri-implant health. The present systematic review aimed to assess the survival rate and mechanical complications of zirconia ceramic compared to metal-ceramic implant-supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). We conducted searches in online databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane up until December 2022. A risk-of-bias assessment was done for all the included studies. Data extraction was performed based on the following parameters: author, year, study design, number of implants, abutment material, age range, observation period, incidence of mechanical complications, and survival rate. This systematic review included six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies). The meta-analysis significantly favored metal-ceramic restorations regarding mechanical complications with a risk ratio (RR) value of 1.64 and P = 0.001. Meta-analysis showed no difference in metal-ceramic FDPs in prostheses survival rate (P = 0.63; RR: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-3.37; heterogeneity: P = 0.65; I2: 0%). While metal-ceramic multiunit implant-supported prostheses exhibited fewer mechanical complications compared to zirconia-ceramic prostheses, there was no significant difference in terms of prosthesis survival rate between the two. Hence, both treatments appear to be viable options for long-term implant-supported prostheses.
ABSTRACT
In the present era when interest in digital dentistry is increasing, the published literature is still confusing about whether digital impression provides similar accuracy as provided by a conventional impression for the fabrication of a single-unit ceramic crown. The aim of the study was to systematically review the in vivo studies comparing marginal, axial, and occlusal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns fabricated after digital impressions with the ones fabricated after conventional impressions. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane online databases were searched for studies comparing the digital impression technique with the conventional technique for single-unit ceramic crowns. Data extraction was done for the year of publication, type of study, country, number of patients, impression system (intraoral scanner [IOS] or conventional impression), marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. Ten studies were included for meta-analysis regarding the discrepancy in marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. The digital impression proved to be better than the conventional impression. The mean difference for marginal fit was 6.54 µm (heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I2 = 93%), for axial fit 24.69 µm (heterogeneity P = 0.34, I2 = 11%), and for occlusal fit 6.99 µm (heterogeneity P = 0.03, I2 = 59%). The results of meta-analyses suggest that there is no significant difference between the impression systems (marginally favoring digital impression). The digital impression technique provided better marginal and internal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns than the conventional impression technique. The digital workflow using IOS provided a clinically acceptable marginal fit for single-unit crowns.
