Clinical performance of single implant prostheses restored using titanium base abutments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the survival rates of restorations utilizing titanium base abutments (TBA) for restoring single-unit implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus question was: In patients who require the restoration of a single dental implant utilizing a titanium base abutment, what are the determining factors and outcomes relating to implant prosthesis prognosis and survival? A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) was conducted on 16 April 2023 and updated on 5 May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT), retrospective studies and prospective studies, reporting on the use of TBA for single implant prostheses, were reviewed. A Cochrane collaboration risk of bias assessment analysis was performed for randomized clinical studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool was applied for non-randomized studies. A meta-analysis was performed on clinical trials reporting on survival rates of both TBA and other abutments. Other clinical studies, reporting on TBA only, were included for descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The search provided 1159 titles after duplicates were removed. Six RCTs were included to perform a meta-analysis and compare the survival of the TBA to other abutments [OR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.21-2.63, heterogeneity; I2 0%; p = .99]. Twenty-three prospective and retrospective studies fulfilled the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis after 12 months of function. A total of 857 single implant-supported prostheses fabricated with a TBA were included. TBA abutments have an estimate 98.6% survival rate after 1 year in function (95% CI: 97.9%-99.4%). The mean follow-up period was 31.2 ± 16.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Single implant prosthesis restored with titanium base abutments showed favourable short-term survival rates.

Application of the 10 Keys for Replacement of Multiple Teeth in the Esthetic Zone.

Ten keys for successful esthetic-zone single immediate implants encapsulate in an evidence-based manner the treatment planning and replacement of single hopeless teeth in the maxillary anterior sextant. These include two treatment-planning, five surgical, and three prosthetic keys, which, collectively, aim to minimize soft- and hard-tissue complications for an optimal esthetic implant restoration. The Straightforward, Advanced, and Complex (SAC) classification is designed to aid clinicians in the treatment planning of dental implant cases. As per this classification, cases are stratified by the degree of surgical and restorative risk and complexity for both the surgical and prosthetic phases of treatment. A technique-sensitive and skill-demanding task, the replacement of multiple adjacent teeth in the esthetic zone poses significant challenges for clinicians and is considered a complex SAC procedure surgically and restoratively. This article presents a case report on the replacement of multiple adjacent teeth in the esthetic zone, demonstrating the use of 10 key principles to achieve an optimal esthetic outcome.

Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements.

BACKGROUND: Single-rooted teeth deemed not restorable via conventional means may be candidates for implant placement at the time of tooth extraction. Immediate implant placements are believed to preserve soft and hard tissue form and contours, reduce the need for augmentation procedures, minimize surgical exposure of the patient, reduce treatment time and improve esthetic outcomes. METHOD: This retrospective review analyzed the esthetic outcomes of 42 non-adjacent single-unit implant restorations completed using an immediate implant surgical placement protocol. RESULTS: The mean time in function was 18.9 months (range 6-50 months) and the majority of implants placed had a restorative platform diameter of 4.1 and 4.8 mm. A highly significant change in crown height due to marginal tissue recession of 0.9 +/- 0.78 mm (P=0.000) was recorded for all sites, with no difference seen between implant systems (P=0.837). Thin tissue biotype showed slightly greater recession than thick tissue biotype (1 +/- 0.9 vs. 0.7 +/- 0.57 mm, respectively); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.187). Implants with a buccal shoulder position showed three times more recession than implants with a lingual shoulder position (1.8 +/- 0.83 vs. 0.6 +/- 0.55 mm, respectively) with the difference being highly statistically significant (P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement requires very careful case selection and high surgical skill levels if esthetic outcomes are to be achieved. Long-term prospective studies on tissue stability and esthetic outcomes are needed.