It has been said, ‘Bone sets the tone, but tissue is the issue.’ In the field of implantology, while significant breakthroughs have been achieved in hard tissue regeneration, clinicians find it more challenging to handle soft tissue complications around dental implants. Successfully managing soft tissue around dental implants requires clinicians to have comprehensive knowledge of proper implant placement, prosthetic design and tissue management, and a high level of surgical skills for soft tissue augmentation and grafting. Autogenous gingival grafts can be utilized in various clinical situations, providing surgeons with great potential and freedom to enhance the quality and quantity of peri-implant soft tissue. Emerging trends, such as digital tools for treatment planning, minimally invasive surgical approaches, and innovative biomaterials, can also contribute to a more pleasing outcome. By elucidating these multifaceted considerations, this review will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians aiming to achieve functional and aesthetic excellence in implant-based oral rehabilitation.

Objectives: Group‐2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology». Focused research questions were: (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant‐supported multi‐unit fixed dental prostheses.Materials and Methods: Literature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted.Results: Additively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw‐retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1‐year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant‐supported multi‐unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3‐year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates.Conclusions: For interim tooth‐colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long‐term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi‐unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications.

To evaluate the precision of complete-arch digital implant scans using intraoral scanning (IOS) and photogrammetry (PG). Nineteen completely edentulous arches were included. Each arches contained at least four implants. Abutment-level digital scans were taken using IOS (3Shape Trios 3) and PG (Imetric ICam 4D, 1st gen). Each arch was scanned five times with each device. Implant cartesian coordinates were extracted, and the Spatial Fit, Cross-Arch Distance, and Virtual Sheffield tests were conducted. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis was conducted to compare the precision of IOS and PG for the three tests. A GEE was used to assess further the association between jaw type (maxilla vs. mandible) and the precision for each device in all three tests. The significance level was set at α=0.05. PG demonstrated greater precision in all three tests (p < 0.0001). Precision was not significantly associated with jaw type in the PG group (p > 0.05). For IOS, the mandibular arch demonstrated inferior levels of precision compared to the maxilla for the Spatial Fit (p = 0.040), Cross-Arch Distance (p = 0.026), and Virtual Sheffield (p = 0.019) tests. PG represented a more precise scanner for complete-arch digital implant scans. Maxillary arch scans were associated with superior precision compared to scans of the mandible, yet statistical significance was only found in the IOS group. IOS scanning for fixed implant rehabilitation of the edentulous jaw with conventional scan bodies should be approached with caution due to the poor precision, particularly in the mandible. PG represented a more precise scanner for complete-arch digital implant scans.

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is widely used in dental diagnosis and implant planning. The accurate segmentation of teeth and alveolar bone from CBC