This study evaluated the vertical discrepancy of implant-fixed 3-unit structures. Frameworks were constructed with laser-sintered Co-Cr, and vacuum-cast Co-Cr, Ni-Cr-Ti, and Pd-Au. Samples of each alloy group were randomly luted in standard fashion using resin-modified glass-ionomer, self-adhesive, and acrylic/urethane-based cements (n = 12 each). Discrepancies were SEM analyzed. Three-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were run (P < 0.05). Laser-sintered structures achieved the best fit per cement tested. Within each alloy group, resin-modified glass-ionomer and acrylic/urethane-based cements produced comparably lower discrepancies than the self-adhesive agent. The abutment position did not yield significant differences. All misfit values could be considered clinically acceptable.

Background Peri-implantitis is a usual finding but estimates of its prevalence fluctuate very much. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. This systematic review aims to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis and the effect of different study designs, function times and use of probing depth on prevalence rate. Methods Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published from January 2005 to December 2021, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Fifty-seven articles were included in this study. Results Prevalence of peri-implantitis was 19.53% (95% CI 12.87–26.19) at the patient-level, and 12.53% (95% CI 11.67–13.39) at the implant-level and it remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition. The use of probing depth like diagnostic criteria affected the prevalence data. Conclusion The results indicate that it remains essential the identification of the diagnostic markers for more accurate disease classification.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: “dental implants”, “impression accuracy”, “digital impression” and “conventional impression”. Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.

No abstract

Clinical studies on the behavior of posterior translucent monolithic zirconia restorations are lacking. We assessed the clinical outcome and survival rate of posterior third-generation monolithic zirconia crowns over a 2-year period. A total of 24 patients, requiring 30 posterior full-contour restorations were selected. All abutments were scanned, and crowns were milled and cemented with a self-adhesive dual cure cement. Crowns were assessed using the California Dental Association’s criteria. Gingival status was assessed by evaluating the gingival index, plaque index, periodontal probing depth of the abutments and control teeth, and the margin index of the abutment teeth. Statistical analyses were performed using the Friedman and the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. During the 2-year follow-up, no biological or mechanical complications were observed, and the survival and success rate was 100%. All restorations ranked as satisfactory throughout the follow-up period. The gingival index and plaque index were worse at the end of the 2-year follow-up. The margin index was stable during the 2 years of clinical service. No significant differences were recorded in periodontal parameters between crowns and control teeth. Third-generation monolithic zirconia could be a reliable alternative to posterior metal–ceramic and second-generation monolithic zirconia posterior crowns.