This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

No abstract

Objectives Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full‐arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. Materials and methods Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. Results A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. Conclusions The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full‐arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One‐piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two‐piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Statement of problem. Long-term clinical data on the survival of pressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations and the effect that different technical and clinical variables have on survival are lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to examine the 10-year survival of pressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations and the relationship between clinical parameters on outcomes. Material and methods. Five hundred and fifty-six patients, ranging in age from 17 to 97 years, from a private clinical practice were enrolled. All participants required single-tooth replacement or repair in any area of the mouth, including single crowns, 3-unit fixed partial dentures, cantilevered anterior restorations, and foundation restorations. Together, the longevity of 1960 complete-coverage restorations was studied. Participants were offered the options of gold, conventional metal-ceramic, or lithium disilicate restoration. Participants who chose glass-ceramic restorations were included in the study. The overall survival of the glass-ceramic restorations was assessed by using clinical factors determined at recall, and the effect of various clinical parameters was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier survival curves to account for attrition bias and other reasons for failure. The statistical significance of differences between parameters was determined using the log-rank test (a=.05).

No abstract