European Association for Osseointegration Delphi study on the trends in Implant Dentistry in Europe for the year 2030

Abstract

Objectives To assess the potential trends for the year 2030 in dental implant dentistry in Europe using the Delphi methodology. Material and methods A steering committee and a management team of experts in implant dentistry were created and validated a questionnaire including 60 questions, divided in eight topics. The survey was conducted in two rounds using an anonymous questionnaire, which provided the participants in the second round with the results of the first. Each question had three possible answers, and the results were expressed as percentages. Results A total of 138 experts were invited to participate in the survey. From all the invited experts, 52 answered in both the first and second rounds. Three different consensus categories were established based on the percentage of agreement: no consensus (<65%); moderate consensus (65%–85%); and high consensus (≥86%). Within the topic categories, a consensus was reached (mainly moderate consensus) for the majority of questions discussed among experts during a face to face consensus meeting. However, consensus was not reached for a small number of questions/topics. Conclusions About 82% of the questions reached consensus. The consensus points towards a lower number of implants to replace chewing units, with implants surfaces made of bioactive materials with reduced micro‐roughness using mainly customized abutments with polished surfaces and an internal implant–abutment connection (85%). CBCT‐3D technologies will be the main tool for pre‐surgical implant placement diagnosis together with direct digital restorative workflows. There will be an increase in the incidence of peri‐implantitis, although there will be more efficient interventions its treatment and prevention.

Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Oral Implants In Vitro: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Nonetheless, the superiority of ceramic oral implants regarding esthetics and biocompatibility, or, as an example, the frequently claimed patients' demand for metal-free implantology are still not soundly scientifically evidenced. Nevertheless, the majority of dental experts are of the opinion that zirconia oral implants will be coexistent with titanium implants in the near future [4].…”

A Prospective Clinical Cohort Investigation on Zirconia Implants: 5-Year Results

“…Zirconia oral implants are regarded as an addendum to the present implant armamentarium by clinicians, while implants made of titanium are considered the gold standard. However, it is expected that the share of these implants will increase in the near future [1]. Currently available clinical data on zirconia implants are limited to fixed prosthetic rehabilitations (especially single crowns (SCs) and short-span fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs)) and show high short-term survival rates (98% after 1 year and 97% after 2 years), which are comparable to two-piece titanium implants [2][3][4][5].…”

Digitization of One-Piece Oral Implants: A Feasibility Study

“…Taking the limitations of the present in vitro setup into account, digitization of one-piece zirconia implants without a scan body results in an accurate virtual model and presents a potential alternative The digital workflow, which is "expected to replace the traditional indirect methods used in traditional dentistry" [16], can be divided into three parts: computer-aided impression (CAI) of oral structures, and CAD and manufacturing (CAM) of the restoration [31]. Every step is associated with potential discrepancies that are propagated to the next stage.…”

“…During impression-making, this procedure allows for simultaneous visualization of the area of interest [14], and delivers a more convenient treatment for patients compared to conventional impressions [15]. According to a recent Delphi study, the intraoral digitization of implants, followed by computer-aided design and manufacturing (computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)) of the implant-supported restorations in a fully digital workflow, is expected to replace conventional techniques within the next decade [16]. To digitize standard two-piece implants, a scan body used as reference geometry is screwed into the implant ("virtual impression coping") and its position is recorded by means of an intraoral scanner (IOS) [17].…”