PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(04): 617-626
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_243_18
Conference Consensus
Dental Investigation Society

Patient-centered rehabilitation of single, partial, and complete edentulism with cemented- or screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis: The First Osstem Advanced Dental Implant Research and Education Center Consensus Conference 2017

Marco Tallarico
1   Deparment of Medical Sciences, School of Dentistry, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania
,
Marco Caneva
2   ARDEC Academy, Ariminum Odontologica, Rimini, Italy
,
Nicola Baldini
3   Department of Periodontics and Implantology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
,
Fulvio Gatti
4   Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Unit of Oral Surgery, San Carlo and San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
,
Marco Duvina
5   Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Mauro Billi
6   Private Practice, Montevarchi, Italy
,
Gaetano Iannello
7   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, School of Dentistry, Policlinic “Gaetano Martino” University of Messina, Messina, Italy
,
Giacomo Piacentini
8   Private Practice, Pavia, Italy
,
Silvio Mario Meloni
9   Department of Surgical Microsurgical and Medical Science, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Marco Cicciù
10   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, Messina, Italy
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
23. September 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

The aim of this consensus conference was to provide clinical guidelines, based on the available evidence and on the author's daily practice and experience, for general dentistry and dental practitioners to allow them to delivery long-term successful restorations. Three groups of expert clinicians and dental technicians were invited to evaluate all of the scientific literature from 1967 up to March 2017 to identify relevant studies on assigned topics and to prepare in advance narrative/systematic review, written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to fulfill the consensus statement criteria. The three topics assigned to the three groups were abutment/framework materials and customization (metal vs. metal-free restorations), abutment/framework protocols and designs, and abutment/framework retentions (cemented- vs. screw-retained implant-supported prostheses). All the expert clinicians presented their results, and the lectures were followed by discussions. No significant differences in clinical parameters (marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, and pocket probing depth) between screw- or cemented-retained were found for single and multiple implant-supported restorations. There is moderate evidence that nonoriginal abutments provide worse mechanical behavior than originals and high evidence that different implant neck designs do not offer any clinical or radiographic advantage. All the participants agreed that it is desirable to connect and remove abutments as few times as possible. There is medium evidence that an adequate platform switching tends to enhance tissue volume and stability in the medium- and long-term follow-up. No statistically significant differences exist between metal and zirconia as a framework material. The authors discussed and all agreed that retrievability and patient's expectation (function and esthetics) should guide the choice of the most adequate technique, component, and material.

Key words:

Cemented-retained - dental implant prosthesis - screw-retained
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; (Suppl. 23) 6: 22-38
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y. Influence of lateral-oblique cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of internal and external hexagon implants. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 373-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Evaluation of gold-machined UCLA-type abutments and CAD/CAM titanium abutments with hexagonal external connection and with internal connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 247-52
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK. et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 232-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001; 72: 1372-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: A radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002; 73: 1111-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997; 24: 568-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lang NP, Berglundh T. Working Group 4 of Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. Periimplant diseases: Where are we now? – Consensus of the seventh European workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2011; (Suppl. 38) 11: 178-81
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Canullo L, Tallarico M, Radovanovic S, Delibasic B, Covani U, Rakic M. Distinguishing predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment and diagnostics of plaque induced, surgically and prosthetically triggered peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 1243-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 The glossary of prosthodontic terms: Ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: e1-105
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 11 Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 71-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012 (Suppl. 23) 6: 163-201
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Gatti F, Gatti C, Tallarico M, Tommasato G, Meloni SM, Chiapasco M. Maxillary sinus membrane elevation using a special drilling system and hydraulic pressure: A 2-Year prospective cohort study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2018 38. 593-9 DOI: 10.11607/prd.3403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Meloni SM, Xhanari E, Omori Y, Canullo L. Survival and success rates of different shoulder designs: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Dent 2018 2018. 6812875 DOI: 10.1155/2018/6812875 . eCollection 2018. Review
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Monje A, Ortega-Oller I, O'Valle F, Catena A. Abutment height influences the effect of platform switching on peri-implant marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 167-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tallarico M, Canullo L, Caneva M, Özcan M. Microbial colonization at the implant-abutment interface and its possible influence on periimplantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61: 233-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Meloni SM, Xhanari E, Covani U, Canullo L. et al. Definitive abutments placed at implant insertion and never removed: Is it an effective approach? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76: 316-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7: 47-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Canullo L, Caneva M, Tallarico M. Ten-year hard and soft tissue results of a pilot double-blinded randomized controlled trial on immediately loaded post-extractive implants using platform-switching concept. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1195-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sailer I, Balmer M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CHF, Känel S, Thoma DS. et al. Comparison of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia and metal frameworks: Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30: 426-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nicolaisen MH, Bahrami G, Schropp L, Isidor F. Comparison of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic three-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses: A 3-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29: 259-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: Myth or science?. J Periodontol 2002; 73: 322-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Elian N, Bloom M, Dard M, Cho SC, Trushkowsky RD, Tarnow D. Effect of interimplant distance (2 and 3 mm) on the height of interimplant bone crest: A histomorphometric evaluation. J Periodontol 2011; 82: 1749-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Klinge B. Peri-implant marginal bone loss: An academic controversy or a clinical challenge?. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012; (Suppl. 05) 1: S13-9
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000; 71: 546-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, Monje A, O Valle F. Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: Beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: e28-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tallarico M, Meloni SM. Open-cohort prospective study on early implant failure and physiological marginal remodeling expected using sandblasted and acid-etched bone level implants featuring an 11 Morse taper connection within one year after loading. J Oral Sci Rehabil 2017; 3: 68-79
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Albrektsson T, Donos N. Working Group 1. Implant survival and complications. The third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; (Suppl. 23) 6: 63-5
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; (Suppl. 18) 3: 97-113
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Tallarico M, Meloni SM. Retrospective analysis on survival rate, template-related complications, and prevalence of peri-implantitis of 694 anodized implants placed using computer-guided surgery: Results between 1 and 10 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: 1162-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Linkevicius T, Vaitelis J. The effect of zirconia or titanium as abutment material on soft peri-implant tissues: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; (Suppl. 26) 11: 139-47
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, Krogh PH, Polizzi G. et al. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: A prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11: 450-5
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric Analysisof the strenght in the “toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatologica 2009; 58: 1-2 9-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Scheller H, Urgell JP, Kultje C, Klineberg I, Goldberg PV, Stevenson-Moore P. A 5-year multicenter study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13: 212-8
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Siegenthaler D, Holderegger C, Hämmerle CH. Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for canine and posterior single-tooth implant reconstructions: Preliminary results at 1 year of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 219-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Cervino G, Romeo U, Lauritano F, Bramanti E, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C. et al. Fem and von mises analysis of OSSTEM ® dental implant structural components: Evaluation of different direction dynamic loads. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 219-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Sambataro S. FEM and von mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: Evaluation of different applied materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2017; 2017: 1029574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7: 817-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lauritano F, Runci M, Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Bramanti E, Cicciù M. Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the von mises stress test. Minerva Stomatol 2016; 65: 353-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: Evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar