Search

Statement of Problem: Clinical studies comparing compatible computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) titanium abutments (CAs) and original prefabricated 1-piece titanium abutments (PAs) for posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on Straumann Tissue Level (STL) implants are sparse., Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the performance of posterior FDPs supported by CAs and PAs on STL implants after a mean observation period of 7.2 years., Material and Methods: Patients who received STL implants and posterior FDPs by using CAs or PAs between January 2002 and December 2012 and returned for follow-up between January 2017 and September 2018 were included in this study. Technical and biological complications of FDPs were examined and recorded. Radiographs were used for the measurement of marginal bone loss (MBL) of each implant. Variables, complication rates, and MBL of the 2 groups were analyzed by using a generalized estimating equation and multivariable linear mixed model., Results: Ninety-nine patients with 195 implants in the CA group and 75 patients with 143 implants in the PA group were included. The mean functional time of FDPs was 6.5 ±1.1 years for the CA group and 8.1 ±2.6 years for the PA group. No implant failure was noted in either group. The technical complication rate was 20.8% in the CA group and 26.3% in the PA group. Abutment screw loosening (ASL) was noted in the CA group (8.5%). The decementation rate was significantly higher in the PA group (14.1%) than that in the CA group (3.1%) (adjusted odds ratio=4.40, confidence interval=1.41 to 13.69, P=.011). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of the rates of ceramic chipping, peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis, or mean MBL., Conclusions: Using CAs or PAs to support posterior FDPs on STL implants has no significant effect on the incidence rate of biological complications. However, a higher ASL rate and a lower decementation rate were noted with CAs than with PAs., (Copyright © 2020 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: Information about the long-term evaluation of 2-piece zirconia abutments (TPZAs) with bonded titanium inserts for implant-supported restorations is sparse., Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of TPZAs with bonded titanium inserts for implant-supported restorations., Material and Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated the records of patients who received implant restorations supported by TPZAs with bonded titanium inserts. The patients were recalled between January 2017 and December 2017 so that the restorations could be examined clinically and radiographically for technical and biological complications., Results: A total of 27 patients with 30 restorations and 42 zirconia abutments (ZAs) were included in the study. The patient records revealed that all implants remained integrated. However, 5 restorations supported by seven ZAs in 4 patients had to be refabricated because of abutment failure before the recall. Six of the failed abutments were in the molar area, with a combination of zirconia and titanium as the connection platform. Additional complications included screw loosening (1 patient), ceramic chipping (1 patient), and peri-implantitis (1 patient). The mean observation period was 6.6 ±1.5 years (range: 3.6 to 9.2 years)., Conclusions: After a mean observation period of 6 years after insertion, TPZAs with bonded titanium inserts appear to be a suitable treatment option in the anterior and premolar regions. However, in the molar area, the use of the same type of ZA without a complete metal-to-metal connection platform to support the restoration led to a high incidence of fracture., (Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: In addition to the original abutments provided by implant companies, compatible computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) abutments are also available from different manufacturers. However, the combination of abutments and implant systems from different manufacturers may lead to mechanical problems between components. Little has been reported on the clinical performance of this treatment option., Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective case series was to evaluate the outcome of compatible CAD-CAM titanium abutments (TiAs) for posterior single-implant tooth replacement (PSITR) up to 6 years after insertion., Material and Methods: Eighty-one patients (34 men, 47 women) who received PSITR restored with compatible CAD-CAM TiAs and had a final recall examination between May 2014 and April 2015 were included in this study. Clinical and radiographic examinations were documented. Retrospective evaluation of the patient records was also performed. Correlations between bone-level changes and variables were calculated using the Spearman correlation., Results: Implant and prosthesis survival rates were 100%. Twenty technical complications were observed, including 9 decementations of the crown, 6 screw loosenings, and 5 ceramic fractures. Periimplant mucositis was diagnosed in 36 patients (44.4%) and periimplantitis in 6 patients (7.4%). Correlation analysis showed a significant effect of the extent of periodontal bone loss of the remaining teeth on the marginal bone-level changes around implants (r=0.548, P<.001)., Conclusions: Compatible CAD-CAM TiAs provide a viable treatment option for PSITR. However, in light of relatively high screw-loosening and decementation rates, choosing appropriate cements and abutment manufacturers is essential to improve the clinical performance of this treatment option., (Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There appears to be no convenient method for fabricating an optimal emergence profile for the definitive restoration of an ITI solid abutment when the implant is installed subgingivally. This article describes an efficient technique to solve this problem and reviews its advantages and disadvantages.