The Ceramic Hype in Oral Implants

The patient of today is oftentimes more concerned about aesthetics and being holistic rather than with masticatory function. Once the dental industry figures some new trend in the market opinion leaders will be called to start innovating treatments. Hence, to be whole with the Universe and to replace a missing tooth, the 21st century patient will want a ceramic implant. What do we know about it, and more importantly, is it worth our sleep to provide this kind of implant to our patient? Many implantologists didn’t yet place any Zirconium Implant since many think this new approach lacks scientific studies being clinical reports, meta-analysis or longitudinal studies. Most of the papers available are focused on single-tooth replacements, however it’s easy to find here and there clinical cases of multiple restorations of a more innovative colleague.

Challenges in Managing a Fractured Cement-retained Crown Located at the Aesthetic Zone: A Case Report

Implant prosthesis is a popular treatment modality but it is not complication free. This article discussed the management of a cemented, all-ceramic implant crown in the maxillary anterior region that had veneering ceramic fracture after three years in function. A screw-retained prosthesis was prescribed to avoid the show of the screw access channel on the incisal edge of the crown. This was achieved by changing the location of the screw hole using the angle screw channel that overcame the angulation issue.

Hybrid Implant Abutments: A Literature Review

Ceramic implant abutments are becoming increasingly popular due to the growing esthetic demands of patients. Two-piece ceramic abutments have the advantages of both ceramic and titanium abutments. This study aimed to review the published articles regarding hybrid abutments and their characteristics.Published articles regarding two-piece abutments were retrieved by electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Medline, and Google Scholar databases using certain keywords. Articles highly relevant to our topic of interest were selected and reviewed.The presence of titanium inserts in hybrid abutments can overcome the brittleness of ceramic, increase the overall fracture resistance, prevent the implant connection wear, and provide better marginal fit compared with one-piece zirconia abutments. Hybrid abutments enable the fabrication of monolithic metal-free implant restorations with optimal esthetics. Furthermore, the risk of porcelain chipping, which is a common complication of implant restorations, is eliminated due to the monolithic structure of these restorations.According to the available literature, hybrid implant abutments have shown promising results with regard to optimal esthetics in the rehabilitation of the esthetic zone. However, long-term clinical studies are required to assess the long-term durability of all-ceramic restorations supported by hybrid abutments.

Single tooth restoration in the maxillary esthetic zone using a one-piece ceramic implant with 1 year of follow-up: case series

Background Oral implants have helped clinicians to improve the quality of life for many patients. The material of choice for dental implants currently remains titanium type IV, whose mechanical and biological properties have been proven throughout the history of implantology. Yet, this material is not exempt from complications. For these reasons, ceramic alternatives to titanium have emerged. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate peri-implant hard and soft tissue stability with the use of a one-piece ceramic implant (Straumann® PURE Ceramic Implant) during 1 year of follow-up. Study design One-piece all-ceramic zirconia (ZrO2) implants were placed to replace single missing teeth in the esthetic zone. Six to 8 weeks after the procedure, the definitive prosthesis was fabricated. At the time of prosthesis, placement (T0) photographs and periapical radiographs were taken, and the following clinical parameters were recorded: probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration on probing (SOP), distance from gingival margin to incisal edge (GM-IE), and Jemt papilla index (JPI). Follow-up appointments were scheduled at 4 (T4), 8 (T8), and 12 (T12) months, when the same parameters were recorded. In addition, plaque control was reinforced and prophylaxis was carried out. In this last appointment, a final periapical radiograph was taken to assess marginal bone loss. Results A total of 32 zirconia implants were placed in 28 patients (16 women and 12 men, aged between 34 and 67 years). The survival and success rate were 96.9%. The increase in probing depth from baseline to 12 months was 0.78 mm. Assessments of plaque index and bleeding on probing showed a slight increase throughout the study. Conclusions The results obtained with the Straumann® PURE Ceramic implants show them to exhibit very good clinical behavior. The survival rate of the implants of our pilot study was 96.9%. For these reasons, we can say that zirconia implants could be an alternative to titanium implants in the esthetic zone.