Objective: The objectives of the study were to assess the survival, failure, and technical complication rates of implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis (iFDPs) with pontic or splinted crown (iS_pC) designs in the posterior area and compare the influence of prosthetic materials and prosthetic design on the outcomes.Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized‐, prospective‐, and retrospective clinical trials with follow‐up time of ≥12 months, evaluating the clinical outcomes of posterior iFDPs with pontic or iS_pCs. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.Results: Thirty‐two studies reporting on 42 study arms were included in the present systematic review. The meta‐analysis of the included studies indicated estimated 3‐year survival rates of 98.3% (95%CI: 95.6–99.3%) for porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal (PFM) iFDPs, 97.5% (95%CI: 95.5–98.7%) for veneered zirconia (Zr) iFDPs with pontic, 98.9% (95%CI: 96.8–99.6%) for monolithic or micro‐veneered zirconia iFDPs with pontic, and 97.0% (95%CI: 84.8–99.9%) for lithium disilicate iFDPs with pontics. The survival rates for different material combination showed no statistically significant differences. Veneered restorations, overall, showed significantly (p < .01) higher ceramic fracture and chipping rates compared with monolithic restorations. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in survival rates (98.3% [95%CI: 95.6–99.3%] vs. 99.1% [95%CI: 97.6–99.7%]) and overall complication rates between PFM iFDPs with pontic and PFM iS_pCs.Conclusions: Based on the data identified by this systematic review, PFM, veneered Zr, and monolithic Zr iFDPs with pontic and iS_pCs showed similarly high short‐term survival rates in the posterior area. Veneered restorations exhibit ceramic chipping more often than monolithic restorations, with the highest fracture rate reported for veneered Zr iFDPs.

Background: Tooth loss results in hard- and soft-tissue volume loss over time. We compared the handling of three different soft tissue substitutes (STS) to the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for soft tissue volume augmentation in a pig ex vivo model. Methods: Five dentists simultaneously shaped, placed and sutured randomized four graft types in single-tooth soft tissue defects created in pig mandibles. The STS, produced from slightly crosslinked collagen fibres (VCMX), were either 3 mm or 6 mm thick blocks or a newly developed pre-customized saddle-shape. Each graft type was handled 20 times. The time required for shaping, placement, and suturing was recorded. Dentists reported outcomes on the grafts’ handling were evaluated with a visual-analogue-scale (VAS). Statistical analysis included calculating means and medians and testing significance. Results: The mean time of 0.72 min for shaping the pre-customized saddle-shape STS was significantly lower than 1.31 min for SCTG, 1.73 min for 3 mm STS and 2.17 min for 6 mm STS. Placement/suturing time was similar for all grafts. The dentists mainly preferred the saddle-shape STS and the SCTG. Conclusions: The saddle-shape STS required less time for graft-shaping and, therefore, reduced the overall treatment time, suggesting a more efficient and less invasive workflow for soft tissue augmentation.