Interproximal Papilla Stability Around CAD/CAM and Stock Abutments in Anterior Regions: A 2-Year Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Lops, Diego; Paniz, Gianluca; Sbricoli, Luca; Magaz, Vanessa Ruiz; Venezze, Alvise Cenzi; Bressan, Eriberto; Stellini, Edoardo

doi:10.11607/prd.3184

Cited by 11 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After screening titles and abstracts, 966 articles were excluded. The full‐text of remaining 12 articles 14‐25 was scrutinized. After full‐text reviewing, seven articles 15‐19,24,25 were excluded due to the following reasons: not reporting the peri‐implant clinical / patient‐reported outcomes ( n = 6) 15‐19,25 and overlapping data ( n = 1) 24 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After full‐text reviewing, seven articles 15‐19,24,25 were excluded due to the following reasons: not reporting the peri‐implant clinical / patient‐reported outcomes ( n = 6) 15‐19,25 and overlapping data ( n = 1) 24 . Subsequently, five articles 14,20‐23 including three RCTs 14,22,23 and two prospective cohort studies 20,21 were included in this systematic review and used for the qualitative and quantitative analyses. We asked the authors of three RCTs 14,22,23 to send mean data of MBL, PI, bleeding one probing (BOP), clinical crown height, patients' overall treatment satisfaction, papilla and crown heights and PES variables, but all authors failed to answer three e‐mail contacts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total number of patients treated within the five studies was 264 (120 in RCTs; 144 in prospective cohort studies) including a total of 264 implants (120 in RCTs; 144 in prospective cohort studies). The follow‐up periods of the included studies were one, 14,22 two 20,21 , and three 23 years. All RCTs had been approved by ethics committee 14,22,23 and one RCT had been registered in clinicaltrials.gov prior to patient enrollment 23 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Raee

Alikhasi

Nowzari

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Digitally customized abutments are increasingly used in contemporary implant prosthodontics. Purpose This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed at comparing the peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments. Materials and methods The search strategies included electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane clinical trials database) and related journals up to September, 2020. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis was performed on data extracted from the included studies. Results Three RCTs (number of patients = 120; number of dental implants = 120) and two prospective cohort studies (number of patients = 144; number of dental implants = 144) with one to three‐year follow‐up periods were included. The quantitative analyses did not demonstrate a significant difference between digitally customized and prefabricated abutments for peri‐implant pocket depth (P = 0.62), plaque index (P = 0.67), bleeding on probing (P = 0.43), keratinized mucosa width (P = 0.75), and pink aesthetic score (P = 0.30) at one‐year follow‐up visit. The qualitative analyses for marginal bone level change, calculus accumulation, implant survival rate, implant success rate, white aesthetic score, and patient‐reported outcomes did not demonstrate a significant difference between two groups during 1 to 3‐year follow‐up visits. Conclusion The current data do not provide evidence of significant differences between two abutment fabrication methods in terms of peri‐implant clinical outcomes within short‐term period (CRD42020170807).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Raee

Alikhasi

Nowzari

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An intra-operative radiograph was taken to confirm the subcrestal position of the implant. An inter-implant distance of 3 mm at least, and/or an interproximal space from 1.5 to 3 mm between an implant and the adjacent tooth were observed [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Three months later, a surgical re-entry was performed and trans-mucosal healing abutments were connected to the implants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five Degree Internal Conical Connection and Marginal Bone Stability around Subcrestal Implants: A Retrospective Analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is limited information on the effect of the connection between subcrestally placed implants and abutments on marginal bone levels. The aim of the present retrospective study was to evaluate marginal bone levels after definitive prosthesis delivery around implants with an internal 5° conical connection placed in a subcrestal position. Materials and methods: Patients treated with fixed prostheses supported by implants placed at a subcrestal level between 2012 and 2018 were recalled for a follow-up examination. All implants had 5° internal conical connection with platform switching. Radiographic marginal bone level (MBL) was measured. MBL change between prosthetic delivery (t0) and follow-up examination (t1) was calculated. A multiple regression model was performed to identify the most significant predictors on MBL change. Results: Ninety-three patients and 410 implants, with a mean follow-up of 2.72 ± 1.31 years, were examined. Mean MBL was −1.09 ± 0.65 mm and −1.00 ± 0.37 mm at t0 and t1, respectively, with a mean bone remodeling of 0.09 ± 0.68 mm. An implant’s vertical position in relation to the bone crest, the year of follow up and the presence of type-2 controlled diabetes were demonstrated to be influencing factors for MBL modifications. Conclusions: Subcrestally placed implants with platform switching and internal conical connection maintained stable bone levels over a mean follow-up of more than 2 years. How a tight internal conical connection between abutment and implant may contribute to this clinical evidence should be more deeply investigated. MBL variations seem to be mostly influenced by an implant’s vertical position and presence of type-2 controlled diabetes.

show abstract

“…In addition to bone level maintenance, patient satisfaction with implant therapy is also dependent on the preservation of interproximal soft tissue volumes in esthetically important sites. Lops et al 262 compared the interproximal papilla stability of restorations supported by computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacture (CAD-CAM) abutments to those supported by prefabricated stock abutments in anterior areas over a 2-year follow-up. Abutments were selected depending on implant inclination and the thickness of buccal peri-implant soft tissues from the following: zirconia stock, titanium stock, zirconia CAD-CAM, and titanium CAD-CAM.…”

Section: Soft Tissue Adjacent Teeth and Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Donovan

Marzola²,

Murphy³

et al. 2018

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, professional literature germane to the clinical practice of prosthodontics was published at an astounding rate. The annual content of over 50 professional journals was searched in its entirety to arrive at this review intended to provide readers with a general clinical update. For convenience, prosthodontics has been divided into 8 subtopics: general prosthodontic considerations, conventional removable complete prosthodontics, conventional removable partial prosthodontics, conventional fixed prosthodontics, general implant prosthodontic considerations, implant removable prosthodontics, implant-fixed prosthodontics, and prosthodontic materials. In addition to the articles selected for review, a sizable volume of excellent general reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and helpful clinical descriptive materials were also published on topics of prosthodontic interest. Although it would be impractical to provide detailed comments on this voluminous additional material, it is listed here for the reader's convenience: clinical processes, 1-7 anatomy and physiology, 8-20 biomechanics, 21 bruxism, 22-25 conventional complete dentures, 26-28 conventional fixed prosthodontics, 29-33 conventional removable partial prosthodontics, 34-36 diagnosis, 37-43 digital dentistry, 44-47

show abstract

Interproximal Papilla Stability Around CAD/CAM and Stock Abutments in Anterior Regions: A 2-Year Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparison of peri‐implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Five Degree Internal Conical Connection and Marginal Bone Stability around Subcrestal Implants: A Retrospective Analysis

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About