Table 6 Studies on single-implant retained monolithic restorations (complete digital workflow). (N/A = not applicable, Tr = trueness, Pr = precision)
From: The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review
| References | No of patients/mean age/follow-up | Indication | Location | Abutment type | Intraoral scanner used | Success (%)/survival (%) | Complications | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joda and Brägger, [86] | 20/55,4y/N/A |
40 single implant screw retained crowns Test: 20 Zirconia (digital impression) Control: 20 metal-ceramic crowns (conventional impression) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible |
Test: customised titanium abutments Control: prefabricated abutments | iTero | 100/100 for both groups at delivery | No corrections needed at delivery for either group | Mean total production time, mean clinical and mean laboratory time were SS shorter for the test group compared to the control |
| Joda and Brägger, [87] | 20/55,4y/N/A |
20 single implant screw-retained crowns Test:10 LS2 crowns (digital impression) Control:10 Zirconia-porcelain crowns (digital impression + model milling) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Prefabricated Ti-base abutment | iTero | 100/100 for both groups at delivery |
Test: no corrections needed at delivery Control: 40% interproximal corrections, 30% occlusal corrections |
Mean total production time (clinic and lab) was SS shorter in the test compared to the control group Especially the laboratory time efficiency was SS shorter for the complete digital workflow |
| Joda et al. [84] | 20/55y/3y | 20 single implant Zirconia-porcelain cement-retained crowns (digital impression + model milling) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Customised Ti abutments | iTero | 100/100 | None observed | The patients’ level of satisfaction correlated well with FIPS |
| Joda et al. [5] | 44/58,1y/2y | 50 single implant LS2 screw-retained crowns | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Prefabricated Ti-base abutment | iTero | 100/100 | None observed | CAD/CAM-produced monolithic implant crowns out of LS2 in a complete digital workflow seem to be a feasible treatment concept for the rehabilitation of single-tooth gaps in posterior sites under mid-term observation |
| Joda et al. [93] | 20/55,4y/3y |
20 single implant screw-retained crowns Test:10 LS2 crowns (digital impression) Control:10 Zirconia-porcelain crowns (digital impression + model milling) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Prefabricated Ti-base abutment | iTero | 100/100 for both groups | None observed | Subjective patient's perception of posterior implant crowns processed in complete digital and combined analog–digital workflows revealed comparable high levels of satisfaction on the overall treatment outcome including function, esthetics, and cleanability after 3 years |
| Mangano and Veronesi, [79] | 50/52,6y/1y |
50 single implant crowns, cement-retained Test:25 zirconia crowns (digital impression) Control:25 metal-ceramic crowns (conventional impression) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible |
25 Customised Zirconia abutments on Ti bases 25 Customised Titanium abutments | CS3600 | 92/100 for both groups |
Test: 4% biologic 4% prosthetic 0,39 mm bone loss (mean) Control: 8% biologic 0% prosthetic 0,55 mm bone loss (mean) |
Identical survival and complication rates between groups No SS differences in marginal bone loss Patients preferred the digital procedures more Digital procedures were more time and cost effective |
| Joda et al. [83] | 20/55y/5y | 20 single implant Zirconia-porcelain, screw-retained crowns | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Customised Ti abutments | iTero | 95/95 |
1 implant loss Mean bone loss: 0,23 mm mesially 0,17 mm distally | CAD/CAM-processed implant crowns demonstrated promising radiographic and clinical outcomes after 5 years in function |
| Mangano et al. [80] | 25/51,1y/1y | 40 single implant zirconia screw-retained crowns | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | 25 Customised Zirconia abutments on Ti bases | CS3600 | 92,4%/97,5% | 7,6% prosthetic | Minor complications such as infra-occlusion, interproximal issues, aesthetics, de-cementation of crowns were reported |
| Delize et al. [78] | 31/47,5y/N/A |
Single implant screw-retained crowns 31 Zr-Porcelain crowns (conventional impression) 31 Zr crowns (digital impression) | Premolar and molar-Maxilla only | Prefabricated Ti bases | Trios 2 |
96,8 for Zr digital 100 for Zr-porcelain |
1/31 Zr crown could not be seated on the Ti-base abutment at try in No follow-up |
Both crowns displayed acceptable and comparable clinical precision (contact points and occlusion) From an esthetic point of view, both the patients and the dentists preferred the conventional over the monolithic Zi crowns |
| De Angelis et al. [81] | 38/65,6y/3y |
19 LS2 cad- cam screw-retained crowns (digital impressions) 19 Zirconia screw-retained crowns (digital impressions) | Premolar and molar |
Prefabricated Ti-bases | Bluecam |
LS2 group: 89/100 Zirconia group: 95/100 |
LS2 group: 5% prosthetic Zirconia group: 5% prosthetic | Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate and zirconia screw-retained single crowns fabricated with a fully digital workflow were found to be reliable and suitable clinical options for restoring a posterior missing tooth on a dental implant |
| Lerner et al. [82] | 90/53,3y/3y | 106 single implant screw retained monolithic zirconia crowns (digital impression) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Hybrid zirconia abutments with titanium bonding base | CS3600 | 91,3/99 |
1,9% Biologic 5,7% Prosthetic | The quality of the fabrication of the individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44 μm (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalisation. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent |