Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics.

OBJECTIVES: Group-2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology¼. 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration.

AIM: To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Anti-cardiolipin antibodies in ischaemic heart disease.

IgG and IgM anti-cardiolipin antibodies (ACA) were assayed by an ELISA technique in 86 patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and compared to 124 healthy controls and to 62 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 20 with tuberculosis (TB). IgG ACA levels in IHD, RA and TB were comparable and significantly higher than in controls (P less than 0.0001). IgM ACA was significantly higher in IHD and RA than controls (P less than 0.0001) but not TB (P = 0.045). The number of IHD patients with raised ACA (IgG and/or IgM) was significantly greater than in RA or TB. (chi 2 = 30.77, P less than 0.0001). ACA were raised in 80.2% IHD patients on one or more occasions during a 1-11 day (mean 4.7) hospital admission. There was no difference in either ACA levels or in the frequency of ACA elevation in patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris or myocardial infarction. We conclude that there is a strong association between IHD and ACA with potentially important therapeutic implications.