Implant-Supported Immediately Loaded Full-Arch Rehabilitations

Abstract

Implant-supported, immediately loaded full-arch rehabilitations supporting resin or zirconia based prostheses were clinically successful in a 5-year follow-up. Prosthesis material did not influence complication risk.

Clinical outcomes of partial and full‐arch all‐ceramic implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…As a result, five studies were rated to show moderate (NOS Score 5-6) and two studies (Oliva F I G U R E 4 Forest plots visualizing annual chipping rates of P-and FA-FDPs et al, 2012;Venezia et al, 2015) to show low (NOS Score 4) methodological quality. Regrettably, less than half of the included articles mentioned and only partially applied these guidelines (Esquivel-Upshaw et al, 2014;Pozzi, Holst, et al, 2015;Sannino & Barlattani, 2016;Tartaglia et al, 2016). It is important to note, that the limited number of included studies in the present review results in a high sensitivity for single outliers (e.g., studies lacking generally applicable comparability of the cohorts).…”

“…In two of seven investigations of the FA-FDP group, four reconstructions needed replacement during the reported observation period (Mendez Caramês et al, 2016;Tartaglia et al, 2016). In the remaining five studies, no replacements were necessary.…”

“…As explained before, data extracted from the study of Spies et al (2015) was presented but not considered for meta-analysis (Table 4 In two of seven investigations of the FA-FDP group, four reconstructions needed replacement during the reported observation period (Mendez Caramês et al, 2016;Tartaglia et al, 2016). As explained before, data extracted from the study of Spies et al (2015) was presented but not considered for meta-analysis (Table 4 In two of seven investigations of the FA-FDP group, four reconstructions needed replacement during the reported observation period (Mendez Caramês et al, 2016;Tartaglia et al, 2016).…”

“…Only two of seven studies included a control group, but missed to report comparability of both the test and control group (Sannino & Barlattani, 2016;Tartaglia et al, 2016). Except for one investigation , all studies were retrospective and lacked a sufficient baseline documentation of the outcome of interest.…”

“…Except for one investigation , all studies were retrospective and lacked a sufficient baseline documentation of the outcome of interest. Only two of seven studies included a control group, but missed to report comparability of both the test and control group (Sannino & Barlattani, 2016;Tartaglia et al, 2016). As a result, five studies were rated to show moderate (NOS Score 5-6) and two studies (Oliva Venezia et al, 2015) to show low (NOS Score 4) methodological quality.…”