Objectives: The aim of Working Group 4 was to address patient benefits associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) dental patient‐reported outcomes (dPROs), (b) improvement in orofacial function, and (c) preservation of orofacial tissues in partially and fully edentulous patients following provision of implant‐retained/supported dental prostheses were addressed.Materials and Methods: Three systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary of the 7th ITI Consensus Conference, taking place in 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal.Results: Edentulous patients wearing complete dentures (CD) experience substantial improvements in overall dPROs and orofacial function following treatment with either complete implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP) or implant overdentures (IODs). With respect to dPROs, mandibular IODs retained by two implants are superior to IODs retained by one implant. However, increasing the number of implants beyond two, does not further improve dPROs. In fully edentulous patients, rehabilitation with CIFDP or IOD is recommended to benefit the preservation of alveolar bone and masseter muscle thickness.Conclusions: Completely edentulous patients benefit substantially when at least the mandible is restored using an CIFDP or an IOD compared to CD. In fully edentulous patients, implant prostheses are the best option for tooth replacement. The availability of this treatment modality should be actively promoted in all edentulous communities, including those with limited access and means.

Vivianne Chappuis, DMD/Kamal Shahim, PhD/Ramona Buser, DMD/Edi Koller, DMD/Tim Joda, DMD/Mauricio Reyes, PhD/Daniel Buser, DMD: The purpose of this case series was to assess safety and feasibility of a novel resorbable collagen matrix (CMX) to enhance tissue thickness simultaneous with implant placement and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in esthetic sites over an 8-week healing period. Soft tissue thickness at implant sites and adjacent teeth was monitored with an ultrasonic device. Overall tissue contour changes were assessed by sequential digital surface model superimpositions. Periodontal parameters and patient-related outcomes revealed no significant changes. Combining a novel CMX and GBR revealed a significant soft tissue thickness increase of 1.56 mm at implant sites after 8 weeks, with no significant decrease between 4 and 8 weeks. The overall tissue contour increase was most significant at a distance of 5 mm from the mucosal margin, corresponding to a tissue increase at the implant shoulder area. No effect was observed at adjacent teeth after 8 weeks.

The present investigation tested the effect of the cleaning method on the tensile bond strength (TBS) between one resin composite cement (RCC) and three different computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials, namely zirconia, lithium disilicate ceramic and resin composite. Ninety specimens were prepared from each CAD/CAM material (N = 270). The specimens were pre-treated respectively, divided into five subgroups and subjected to five different cleaning protocols, namely i. 37% phosphoric acid, ii. ethanol, iii. phosphoric acid + ethanol, iv. cleaning paste, v. distilled water. After cleaning, the specimens were either conditioned using a universal primer or a universal adhesive and bonded using a dual-curing RCC. After thermo-cycling (20,000x at 5 °C/55 °C), TBS and fracture patterns were evaluated. The data was analyzed using 1- and 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Scheffé and partial eta-squared (ƞ_P²), Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U and Chi² tests (p < 0.05). The CAD/CAM material showed an impact on the BS while the cleaning protocol did not affect the results. Zirconia obtained the highest BS, followed by lithium-disilicate-ceramic. Resin composite resulted in the overall lowest BS. For most fracture patterns, the cohesive type occurred. All tested cleaning protocols resulted in same BS values within one CAD/CAM material indicating that the impact of the cleaning method for the restorative material seems to play a subordinate role in obtaining durable bond strength to resin composite cement. Further, it indicates that the recommended bonding protocols are well adjusted to the respective materials and might be able to compensate the impact of not accurately performed cleaning protocols.

To assess the mechanical durability of monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDP) design on one implant, with a distal and a mesial extension cantilever bonded to a titanium base compared to established designs on two implants. Roxolid Tissue level (TL), and tissue level x (TLX) implants were used to manufacture screw-retained 3-unit iFDPs (n = 60, n = 10 per group), with following configurations (X: Cantilever; I: Implant, T: Test group, C: Control group): T1: X-I-X (TL); T2: X-I-X (TLX); T3: I-I-X (TL); T4: I-I-X (TLX); C1: I-X-I (TL); C2: I-X-I (TLX). The iFDPs were thermomechanically aged and subsequently loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine. The failure load at first crack (F_initial) and at catastrophic fracture (F_max) were measured and statistical evaluation was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests. The mean values ranged between 190 ± 73 and 510 ± 459 N for F_initial groups, and between 468 ± 76 and 1579 ± 249 N for F_max, respectively. Regarding F_initial, neither the implant type, nor the iFDP configuration significantly influenced measured failure loads (all p > 0.05). The choice of implant type did not show any significant effect (p > 0.05), while reconstruction design significantly affected F_max data (I-I-X^a < X-I-X^b < I-X-I^c) (p < 0.05). The mesial and distal extension groups (X-I-X) showed fractures only at the cantilever extension site, while the distal extension group (I-I-X) showed one abutment and one connector fracture at the implant/reconstruction interface. Results suggest that iFDPs with I-X-I design can be recommended regardless of tested implant type followed by the mesial and distal extension design on one implant abutment (X-I-X).