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

Article Article scientifique Article Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021 eng 2021-06-19 2021-06-19 author Jokstad Asbjorn author Pjetursson Bjarni 846349 author Mühlemann Sven 0000-0003-1253-1813 author Wismeijer Daniel 0000-0001-6736-1941 author Wolfart Stefan author Fehmer Vincent 833517 author Frederik Güth Jan author Paterno Holtzman Lucrezia author Hämmerle Christoph H F author Makarov Nikolay Aleksandrovic 810853 author Meijer Henny J A author Milinkovic Iva author Sailer Irena 809246 author Spitznagel Frank A author Vandeweghe Stefan author Van de Velde Tommie author Zwahlen Marcel author Giertmuehlen Petra C 336-341 10.1111/clr.13797 34145922 0905-7161 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). 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. 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. (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 increase when optical compared to conventional impressions is used for fabricating iSCs and short-span FPDs (2 RCT, 5 NRCT). Clinical research Clinical trials Prosthodontics Dewey 617.6 210 Division de prothèse fixe et biomatériaux 24Q2 false 908 Groupe Sailer Iréna 946 Clinical oral implants research 32 21 a7dc8333-e4f5-493f-af6a-c9efc0276cac Article (Published version) Public Fabricationworkflow.pdf 464459 application/pdf CC BY-NC-ND openAccess Faculté de médecine / Section de médecine dentaire / Département de réhabilitation oro-faciale / Division de prothèse fixe et biomatériaux

Title	Published in	Year	Views	Downloads

Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021	Clinical oral implants research	2021	247	169
Implant survival in 1- versus 2-implant mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis	Clinical oral implants research	2016	698	1

Archive ouverte UNIGE

Makarov, Nikolay Aleksandrovic