cad a22 4500 55146822X 20200417040220.0 cr unu---uuuuu 181215e201810 xx s 000 0 eng 10.5167/uzh-159413 doi 10.1111/clr.13298 doi (ZORA)oai:www.zora.uzh.ch:159413 610 ddc 30328196 pmid Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Prosthodontics and implant dentistry [Elektronische Daten] [Dean Morton, German Gallucci, et al, Irena Sailer, Vedrana Braut, Daniel Buser, Charlotte Stilwell, Anja Zembic] openAccess eu-repo OBJECTIVES Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence. Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry zora Morton Dean joint author Gallucci German joint author et al joint author Sailer Irena joint author Braut Vedrana joint author Buser Daniel joint author Stilwell Charlotte joint author Zembic Anja joint author Clinical Oral Implants Research 29 Suppl:215-223 https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/159413/1/Morton_et_al-2018-Clinical_Oral_Implants_Research_acc.pdf text/html WWW-Backlink auf das Repository 1 Journal Article PeerReviewed zora ZORA 856 40 https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/159413/1/Morton_et_al-2018-Clinical_Oral_Implants_Research_acc.pdf text/html WWW-Backlink auf das Repository ZORA 700 1- Morton Dean joint author ZORA 700 1- Gallucci German joint author ZORA 700 -- et al joint author ZORA 700 1- Sailer Irena joint author ZORA 700 1- Braut Vedrana joint author ZORA 700 1- Buser Daniel joint author ZORA 700 1- Stilwell Charlotte joint author ZORA 700 1- Zembic Anja joint author ZORA 773 0- Clinical Oral Implants Research 29 Suppl:215-223 BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 ZORA ZORA ZORA Journal Article openAccess