Opin vísindi

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

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


Title: Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction : Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
Author: Jokstad, Asbjorn
Pétursson, Bjarni Elvar
Mühlemann, Sven
Wismeijer, Daniel
Wolfart, Stefan
Fehmer, Vincent
Güth, Jan Frederik
Holtzman, Lucrezia Paterno
Hämmerle, Christoph H.F.
Makarov, Nikolay
... 8 more authors Show all authors
Date: 2021-10
Language: English
Scope: 6
Department: Faculty of Odontology
Series: Clinical Oral Implants Research; 32 Suppl 21(S21)
ISSN: 0905-7161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13797
Subject: Tanngervi; Tölvustudd hönnun; Rannsóknir; Tannsmíði; clinical research; clinical trials; prosthodontics; Crowns; Humans; Workflow; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Prosthesis Design; Oral Surgery
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/3134

Show full item record

Citation:

Jokstad , A , Pétursson , B E , Mühlemann , S , Wismeijer , D , Wolfart , S , Fehmer , V , Güth , J F , Holtzman , L P , Hämmerle , C H F , Makarov , N , Meijer , H J A , Milinkovic , I , Sailer , I , Spitznagel , F A , Vandeweghe , S , de Velde , T V , Zwahlen , M & Giertmuehlen , P C 2021 , ' Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction : Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021 ' , Clinical Oral Implants Research , vol. 32 Suppl 21 , no. S21 , pp. 336-341 . https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13797

Abstract:

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).

Description:

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)