Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics

W. Derksen, T. Joda, J. Chantler, V. Fehmer, G. O. Gallucci, P. C. Gierthmuehlen, A. Ioannidis, D. Karasan, A. Lanis, K. Pala, B. E. Pjetursson, M. Roccuzzo, I. Sailer, F. J. Strauss, T. C. Sun, S. Wolfart, N. U. Zitzmann

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVES: Group-2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology». Focused research questions were: (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted. RESULTS: Additively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw-retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1-year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant-supported multi-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3-year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates. CONCLUSIONS: For interim tooth-colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long-term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi-unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)104-111
    Number of pages8
    JournalClinical Oral Implants Research
    Volume34
    Issue numberS26
    Early online date26 Sept 2023
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Sept 2023

    Bibliographical note

    Special Issue: Proceedings of the Seventh ITI Consensus Conference. This Consensus Meeting was supported by the International Team for Implantology.

    Publisher Copyright:
    © 2023 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Funding

    Open access funding provided by Universitat Zurich.

    FundersFunder number
    Universitat Zurich

      Keywords

      • clinical research
      • clinical trials
      • material sciences
      • patient centered outcomes
      • prosthodontics

      Fingerprint

      Dive into the research topics of 'Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

      Cite this