Hellerduke3551

ue levels.

The aim of the present systematic literature review was to determine whether long-term treatment results with single-tooth implants may differ depending on the timing of implant placement in relation to tooth extraction (immediate IP/early EP/delayed DP) and the timing of prosthetic loading (immediate IL/early EL/delayed DL).

Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify studies reporting on long-term results (survival rate and/or marginal bone resorption after ≥3years) of maxillary single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone using defined placement and loading protocols. Comparative trials were subjected to meta-analyses whilst data from single-arm studies were pooled to evaluate differences between timing protocols.

A total of 7 controlled trials were considered for meta-analyses immediate loading was compared to delayed loading in 3studies on immediate placement (IPIL vs. IPDL, p=.306) and in 2studies on delayed placement (DPIL vs. DPDL, p=1.000) whilst 2studies compared early versus delayed placement with delayed loading (EPDL vs. DPDL, p=.600), however, without significant differences. Pooled data analysis of 29studies (965 implants) did not show differences between timing of placement or loading as well as marginal bone remodelling. No impact of the one abutment - one time concept, flap design and simultaneous bone or soft tissue augmentation could be established.

Insufficient data are available for meta-analytic comparison of all combinations of implant placement and loading protocols.

Insufficient data are available for meta-analytic comparison of all combinations of implant placement and loading protocols.

To address the following question "Is the timing of implant placement and/or loading influencing the esthetic outcomes of implant-supported single crowns?"

A literature screening was performed in four electronic databases until June 2020. Randomized controlled clinical trials with a minimum of 10 patients and 1year of follow-up and reporting on dimensional changes of the peri-implant mucosa (midfacial recession, papilla level) and esthetic indexes were included. www.selleckchem.com/MEK.html Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used, and comparable trials were subjected to meta-analyses.

Out of 8549 articles, 72 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included. Nine trials evaluated the timing of implant placement, and nine trials evaluated the timing of loading. The included trials comparing immediate implant placement to delayed implant placement evaluating the midfacial recession reported heterogeneous findings. No differences were found at 1 and 2-years, when comparing midfacial recession and papilla level between immediate and early implant placement. In immediate and delayed implant placement, when comparing conventional and immediate loading, the midfacial mucosal margin change was not statistically significant at the 1-year follow-up. When evaluating the timing of implant placement and/or loading the included trials found no differences in the Pink Esthetic score, White Esthetic score, and Papilla Index between groups.

Both immediate and early implant placement protocols presented stable treatment results in terms of esthetic outcomes at the 1-, 2-, and 10-years follow-up. Loading protocols did not seem to influence esthetic outcomes in short- and medium-term follow-ups.

Both immediate and early implant placement protocols presented stable treatment results in terms of esthetic outcomes at the 1-, 2-, and 10-years follow-up. Loading protocols did not seem to influence esthetic outcomes in short- and medium-term follow-ups.

To review the available literature on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites.

A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify clinical studies that involved soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and reported PROMs, including post-operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetics and satisfactions.

Nineteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Autogenous grafts (free gingival graft and connective tissue graft), acellular dermal matrix and xenogeneic collagen matrix were utilized, either with a bilaminar- or an apically positioned flap approach. PROMs reported in the literature included perceived hardship of the procedure and pain during the surgery, post-operative morbidity, painkillers intake, number of days with discomfort, satisfaction, aesthetic evaluation, quality of life and willingness to undergo the treatment again. Most of the included studies showed similar PROMs between autissue grafting can enhance patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation compared to non-grafted sites.

The primary objective was to provide an overview of soft tissue metric parameters, methods, and aesthetic indices in implant dentistry. The secondary objective was to describe reliability and validity of aesthetic indices.

Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to October 2020 to identify studies on soft tissue metric parameters, methods, and aesthetic indices. Aesthetic indices were evaluated in terms of reliability and validity. Data extraction was performed by the same reviewers.

Five metric parameters (papilla height, linear changes in soft tissue level, color assessment, soft tissue thickness, and profilometric soft tissue changes) registered by means of several methods (intra-oral registrations, radiographic assessments, digital analyses, and ultrasonic assessments), and 15 aesthetic indices (Papilla Index (PI), ad hoc questions scored with Visual Analogue Scales, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), Implant Crown Aestty have been described and used, which hampers uniform reporting in implant dentistry. Clinical investigators are advised to measure linear and profilometric soft tissue changes using digital surface models, and to use a reliable and validated aesthetic index. Currently, PES qualifies best for aesthetic evaluation of single implants. An index is to be developed to assess the aesthetic outcome of rehabilitations on multiple implants.

Many soft tissue assessment methods with varying reliability and validity have been described and used, which hampers uniform reporting in implant dentistry. Clinical investigators are advised to measure linear and profilometric soft tissue changes using digital surface models, and to use a reliable and validated aesthetic index. Currently, PES qualifies best for aesthetic evaluation of single implants. An index is to be developed to assess the aesthetic outcome of rehabilitations on multiple implants.

To summarize the existing evidence on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported restorations fabricated using a digital workflow in comparison to conventional manufacturing procedures.

A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic and manual search focusing on clinical studies evaluating PROMs of implant-supported restorations. Only clinical trials assessing conventional versus digital workflows for implant-supported restorations were included. PROMS on implant impression procedures and fabrication of final restorations were evaluated using random and fixed effects meta-analyses, while implant planning/placement was reported descriptively.

Among 1062 titles identified, 14studies were finally included, and only seven studies were eligible for meta-analysis. For implant planning and placement, only a qualitative analysis was possible due to heterogeneity between the studies. For impression procedures, the random effects model revealed statistically significant differences in taste,ided implant placement could be given at this time. Patients showed high preference for optical impressions, whereas no differences between veneered and monolithic restorations could be reported.

To systematically review the dental literature for clinical studies reporting on production time, effectiveness and/or costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses.

A systematic electronic search for clinical studies from 1990 until June 2020 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Time required for the computer-aided design (CAD) process, the CAM process, and the delivery of the CAD-CAM prostheses were extracted. In addition, articles reporting on the effectiveness and the costs of both manufacturing technologies were included.

Nine clinical studies were included reporting on subtractive CAM (s-CAM; 8 studies) and additive CAM (a-CAM; 1 study). Eight studies reported on the s-CAM of prosthetic and auxiliary components for single implant crowns. One study applied a-CAM for the fabrication of an implant bar prototype. Time was provided for the CAD process of implant models (range 4.9-11.8min), abutments (range 19.7-32.7min) and crowns (range 11.1-37.6min). The time for s-CAM of single implant crown components (abutment/crown) ranged between 8.2 and 25min. Post-processing (e.g. sintering) was a time-consuming process (up to 530min). At delivery, monolithic/veneered CAD-CAM implant crowns resulted in additional adjustments chairside (51%/93%) or labside (11%/19%).

No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s-CAM and a-CAM. For both technologies, post-processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD-CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD-CAM crowns.

No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s-CAM and a-CAM. For both technologies, post-processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD-CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD-CAM crowns.

The aim of this review was to investigate the evidence correlating the emergence profile (EP) and emergence angle (EA), peri-implant tissue height, implant neck design, abutment and/or prosthesis material, retention and connection types with risk of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Seven focus questions were identified, and seven electronic search queries were conducted in PubMed. Human studies reporting on bleeding on probing, probing depth or case definitions of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were included.

Emerging evidence with bone-level implants suggests a link between EA combined with convex EP and peri-implantitis. Depth of the peri-implant sulcus of ≥3mm is shown to be reducing the effectiveness of treatment of established peri-implant mucositis. Modification of the prosthesis contour is shown to be an effective supplement of the anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Limited evidence points to no difference with regard to the risk for peri-implant mucositimes measures, as well as diverse methodological approaches. Purpose-designed studies are required to clarify current observations.

This systematic review assessed the influence of soft tissue augmentation procedures on marginal bone level changes in partial or fully edentulous patients.

We identified three relevant PICO questions related to soft tissue augmentation procedures and conducted a systematic search of four major electronic databases for clinical studies in systemically healthy patients receiving at least one dental implant and a minimum follow-up of one year after implant placement. The primary outcome was mean difference in marginal bone levels, and secondary outcomes were clinical and patient-related outcomes such as thickness of peri-implant mucosa, bleeding indices, and Pink Esthetic Score.

We identified 20 publications reporting on 16 relevant comparisons. Studies varied considerably and thus only two meta-analyses could be performed. This systematic review showed that Soft tissue augmentation either for augmentation of keratinized mucosa or soft tissue volume inconsistently had an effect on marginal bone level changes when compared to no soft tissue augmentation, but consistently improved secondary outcomes.