Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

Autor: Jokstad A; Department of Clinical Dentistry, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway., Pjetursson BE; Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland., Mühlemann S; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Wismeijer D; Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Wolfart S; Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany., Fehmer V; Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland., Güth JF; Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany., Holtzman LP; Periodontology and prosthodontics, Ospedale Odontoiatrico George Eastman, Rome, Italy., Hämmerle CHF; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Makarov N; Oral Surgery and Implant Prosthetic Unit, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, Rome, Italy., Meijer HJA; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands., Milinkovic I; Department of Periodontology and Oral Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia., Sailer I; Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland., Spitznagel FA; Department of Prosthodontics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany., Vandeweghe S; Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium., de Velde TV; MOND dental offices, Antwerp, Belgium., Zwahlen M; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland., Giertmuehlen PC; Department of Prosthodontics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral implants research [Clin Oral Implants Res] 2021 Oct; Vol. 32 Suppl 21, pp. 336-341.
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13797
Abstrakt: Objectives: To report assessments of four systematic reviews (SRs) on (i) clinical outcomes of all-ceramic implant-supported crowns (iSCs), (ii) production time, effectiveness, and costs of computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM), (iii) computer-assisted implant planning and surgery (CAIPS) time and costs, and (iv) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS).
Material and Methods: An author group consisting of experienced clinicians and content experts discussed and evaluated the SRs and formulated consensus on the main findings, statements, clinical recommendations, and need for future research.
Results: All four SRs were conducted and reported according to PRISMA and detailed comprehensive search strategies in at least three bibliometric databases and hand searching. The search strategies were deemed reproducible. Variation was noted regarding language restrictions and inclusion of grey literature, but the search comprehensiveness appeared persuasive. The SRs included bias risk assessments of the primary studies, and their study methodology impacted the interpretations of the extracted data.
Conclusions: (i) There is limited evidence (49 NRCT) showing that veneered and monolithic all-ceramic iSCs have excellent outcomes observed up to 3 years. (ii) There is no evidence evaluating production time and effectiveness comparing subtractive and additive CAM of implant models, abutments and crowns. (iii) There is limited evidence (4 RCT) that CAIPS involves more time and costs when considering the entire workflow and for diagnostics, manufacturing, and insertion of the restoration. Time seems to be the decisive factor for higher costs. (iv) Patients' comfort increases when optical compared to conventional impressions are used for fabricating iSCs and short-span FPDs (2 RCT, 5 NRCT).
(© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: