The biological outcomes at the zirconia and metal abutments were comparable. All-ceramic crowns demonstrated better colour match, but higher frequency of marginal discrepancy compared to metal-ceramic crowns. Generally, the patients noticed no difference in aesthetic outcome of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the biological and aesthetic outcome of connective tissue grafting around single‐tooth implant replacements in the anterior maxilla after five years.Materials and methodsNineteen patients (mean age: 22) received 33 implants in combination with bone grafts. After healing, 10 implant sites received facial connective tissue grafts harvested from the palate (test group). The remaining 23 implant sites without soft tissue grafts were used as a control group. The biological outcomes included survival rate, complications, marginal bone level, keratinized mucosa height and soft tissue level. The aesthetic outcomes included soft tissue thickness, spectrophotometric colour of mucosa, 3D facial dimensional changes and professional reported aesthetic outcomes. All data were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively after six months and one, three and five years.ResultsAfter five years, the survival and success rate of implants was 100% and 93.9% (one aesthetic and one biological complication). The soft tissue level changed significantly more towards the incisal direction in the test than in the control group from one to five years of observation (p = .024). The facial dimension increased significantly more in the test group than in the control group (3 mm marginally: p = .010). The subjective evaluation of mucosa colour was significantly better in the test versus control group (p = .035). Other biological and aesthetic parameters were not significantly different between the test and control group.ConclusionAugmentation using a connective tissue graft may result in better mucosal colour match and more facial dimensional gain compared to implant sites without soft tissue grafting.

The feasibility, reliability and validity of the CIS make the parameters useful for quality control of implant-supported restorations. The professional- and patient-reported aesthetic outcomes had no significant correlation.

Objective To compare 5‐year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient‐reported outcomes of single‐tooth implant‐supported all‐ceramic versus metal‐ceramic restorations. Materials and methods Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5‐year follow‐up. The prosthetic treatment on single‐tooth implants was randomly assigned to all‐ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal‐ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient‐reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP‐49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow‐up examination. Results At the 5‐year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: −0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC‐ and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different. Conclusions The biological, aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes for implant‐supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5‐years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments.

No abstract