Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Bompolaki, Despoina; Edmondson, Sara A.; Katancik, James A.; Kamposiora, Phophi; Papavasiliou, George

doi:10.1111/jopr.13284

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on these definitions, 80.2% restorations were deemed suc-cessful, whereas 70.3% restorations were complication-free throughout the follow-up period. A recent retrospective study on posterior metal-ceramic and full cast implant-supported restorations completed by predoctoral students reported a 74.4% success rate at 10 years, 17 which is consistent with the findings of the present study. In a study reporting on lithium-disilicate implant-supported restorations, De Angelis et al 16 reported an 89% complication-free rate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant‐Supported Single Crowns Using Solid or Predrilled Blocks in a Fully Digital Workflow: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 33 Months of Follow Up

Bompolaki

Punj²,

Fellows

et al. 2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of CAD/CAM monolithic implantsupported restorations manufactured using a fully digital workflow and two different types of ceramic blocks. Materials and Methods: One hundred and one patients received single-unit implantsupported restorations at a University predoctoral clinic. All restorations were designed and fabricated using either a predrilled LS 2 block (group P, n = 59) or a conventional solid LS 2 block with an occlusal opening drilled manually prior to crystallization (group M, n = 42). The mean follow-up time after restoration delivery was 18.4 ± 4.8 months (range 12 to 33 months). Patients with less than a 12-month follow-up were excluded. Electronic health records were reviewed to identify number and type of complications during the follow-up time. Clinical outcomes were classified as success, survival, and failure of the restoration. Chi-square tests were used to identify differences in success and survival rates between the groups. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify differences in the number of major and minor complications as well as the total number of complications that were observed among groups. Results: Overall success and survival rates were 80.2% and 97%, respectively. Seventy one restorations (70.3%) were complication-free. There were no significant differences between the groups with regards to the number of complications or success and survival rates. Conclusions: Single-unit CAD/CAM monolithic implant-supported restorations that are fabricated in a fully digital workflow present relatively high complication rates and moderate short-term clinical outcomes. Clinical studies with longer follow-up times are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of these restorations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant‐Supported Single Crowns Using Solid or Predrilled Blocks in a Fully Digital Workflow: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 33 Months of Follow Up

Bompolaki

Punj²,

Fellows

et al. 2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Survey of screw‐retained versus cement‐retained implant restorations used in both education and private dental practices

Found,

Shah,

Fouda

et al. 2024

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsIn the literature, it is still unclear if the decisions for selecting the type of implant crown‐retaining system are based on scientific‐based research or if the Universities’ choices, Implant marketing trends, or finances could have a major influence on the private dentists’ decisions.ObjectivesTherefore, this study aimed to evaluate the crown‐retaining system (cement‐ or screw‐retained) used in dental schools and private dental practices.MethodsA 13‐item questionnaire was sent to Canadian dental schools (n = 10) and dental offices in London (n = 298), Canada. The questionnaire included demographic questions and questions to reveal the dentists’ perspectives on prosthetic implant treatment between the two‐retaining systems. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression (p = 0.05).ResultsTwenty‐four private dentists and five dental schools responded to the survey – 62.5% of private practitioners and 60% of universities reported using both systems. A trend was observed in using screw‐retained systems by dentists who graduated 5–10 years ago. Straumann, Astra, and Nobel Biocare were the private practices and dental schools’ preferred implant systems. The use of platform switching for all cases was selected by 54.2% of the private practitioners and 40% of the dental schools. Resin cement was the private practice's preferred cementation method; the dental schools used glass ionomer and zinc phosphate cement. The multinomial logistic regressions showed no statistical difference between the crown‐retaining system chosen and the decision factors. The laboratory technician's recommendations and cost influenced the decision‐making process for private dentists. For the universities, perio‐restorative outcome, implant position, survival rates, institute preferences, and evidence‐based research influenced the crown‐retaining system's decision‐making process. ConclusionThe Canadian dental schools and private practice reported using both screw‐ and cement‐retaining systems. However, there was a difference in the selection criteria as the universities showed a tendency towards a more research‐based approach in their decision, while for the private practices, the technicians’ recommendations and cost played a major role in the decision process. It was noted that the implant systems preconized by the Universities were observed to be used in private practices.

show abstract

Impact of profile angle of CAD-CAM abutment on the marginal bone loss of implant-supported single-tooth posterior restorations

Han,

Pyo

et al. 2023

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Single Posterior Implant‐Supported Restorations Completed by Predoctoral Students: A Retrospective Study with Up to 10 Years of Follow Up

Cited by 5 publications

References 35 publications

Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant‐Supported Single Crowns Using Solid or Predrilled Blocks in a Fully Digital Workflow: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 33 Months of Follow Up

Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant‐Supported Single Crowns Using Solid or Predrilled Blocks in a Fully Digital Workflow: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 33 Months of Follow Up

Survey of screw‐retained versus cement‐retained implant restorations used in both education and private dental practices

Impact of profile angle of CAD-CAM abutment on the marginal bone loss of implant-supported single-tooth posterior restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About