A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyze the survival of onlay restorations in the posterior region, their clinical behavior according to the material used (ceramic reinforced with lithium disilicate, conventional feldspathic ceramic or reinforced with leucite; hybrid materials and composite), possible complications, and the factors influencing restoration success. The systematic review was based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, without publication date or language restrictions. An electronic search was made in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases. After discarding duplicate publications and studies that failed to meet the inclusion criteria, the articles were selected based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question. The following variables were considered in the qualitative and quantitative analyses: restoration survival rate (determined by several clinical parameters), the influence of the material used upon the clinical behavior of the restorations, and the complications recorded over follow-up. A total of 29 articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and 27 for the quantitative analysis. The estimated restoration survival rate was 94.2%. The predictors of survival were the duration of follow-up (beta = −0.001; p = 0.001) and the onlay material used (beta = −0.064; p = 0.028). Composite onlays were associated with a lower survival rate over time. Onlays are a good, conservative, and predictable option for restoring dental defects in the posterior region, with a survival rate of over 90%. The survival rate decreases over time and with the use of composite as onlay material.

Purpose: The objective of this prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to analyze and compare the clinical behavior of three types of prosthesis supported by single implants in the posterior region after three years of functional loading. Materials and methods: Seventy-five implants were divided into three groups according to the type of prosthetic restoration: screw-retained crown (group GS); cemented crown without finishing line (biologically oriented preparation technique) (group GBOPT); and conventional cemented crown with finishing line (group GCC). After three years in function, clinical parameters (presence of keratinized mucosa, probing depths, bleeding on probing, and radiographic bone loss) were compared between the three experimental groups. The possible correlation between soft tissue clinical parameters and bone loss was also analyzed. Results: Statistical analysis found significant differences in clinical parameters between the different types of crown, with the cemented restoration without finishing line (BOPT) presenting fewer complications and better peri-implant health outcomes including: significantly different KMW data (mm), with significant differences between groups GBOPT and GCC (p < 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test), with GBOPT obtaining larger quantities of keratinized mucosa (KM); statistically significant differences in probing depth (PD) values between groups GBOPT and GCC (p = 0.010, Kruskal–Wallis test); significant differences in bleeding on probing (BOP) between groups GBOPT and GCC (p = 0.018, Chi2 test) in favor of GBOPT. Conclusions: Soft tissue behavior around implants is related to the type of prosthetic restoration used, with cemented prostheses with BOPT presenting better peri-implant soft tissue behavior.

No abstract

Objectives. The aim of this study was to analyze the behavior of the periodontal tissues around teeth in the anterior region when restored with zirconia single crowns, using a biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT), over a 6-year follow-up. Methods. The study investigated tooth-supported single crowns in the anterior region that were fabricated with a zirconia core and feldspathic ceramic covering, in 34 patients. Follow-up analysis took place annually for 6 years, assessing periodontal responses by evaluating the following variables: plaque index (PI); probing depth (PD); gingival index (GI); gingival thickness adjacent to the restoration; and stability of the gingival margin (MS). Any (biological and mechanical) complications were also recorded, as well as the patients’ satisfaction with the treatment. Results. After 6 years’ follow-up, a low mean plaque index was obtained, probing depth was stable, and gingival thickness and margin stability had increased. Complications (biological and mechanical) did not present a statistically significant incidence and a crown survival rate of 97.2% was achieved. Patients’ satisfaction obtained a mean VAS score of 9.04 under 10. Conclusion. Teeth that are prepared with BOPT in the anterior region present good periodontal behavior around the restored teeth, particularly in terms of the stability of the gingival margin and increased gingival thickness. Single crowns prepared with BOPT obtain an excellent clinical survival rate, as well as a high score in patients’ satisfaction after 6 years.

Purpose: The objective of this prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to analyze and compare the clinical behavior of three types of prosthesis supported by single implants in the posterior region after three years functional loading. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five implants were divided into three groups according to the type of prosthetic restoration: screw-retained crown (Group GS); cemented crown without finishing line (biologically oriented preparation technique) (Group GBOPT); and conventional cemented crown with finishing line (Group GCC). The clinical behavior of each restoration type was analyzed after 3 years functional loading by analyzing radiographic peri-implant bone loss. Results: GBOPT obtained the least bone loss (p < 0.01) in comparison with GS and GCC. Conclusions: Bone loss around implants is related to the type of prosthetic restoration it supports, whereby cemented BOPT crowns present less bone loss.