The IPS e.max system by Ivoclar Vivadent, offering a variety of products and indications, is widely used for all-ceramic restorations. We analyzed the clinical track record of these products in daily clinical practice, associating their restorative survival rate with various parameters to define recommendations for long-term stability. A total of 1058 full-coverage crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) were evaluated retrospectively over up to 66.48 (37.05 ± 18.4) months. All were made of IPS e.max Press, IPS e.max CAD, IPS e.max Ceram or IPS e.max ZirPress and had been delivered by a private dental practice within three years. Uses not recommended by the manufacturer were also deliberately included. The five-year cumulative survival was 94.22% (i.e., 94.69% or 90.58% for glass-ceramic crowns or FDPs and 100% or 90.06% for zirconia-based crowns or FDPs). Significantly superior outcomes emerged for conventional vs. adhesive cementation and for vital vs. non-vital abutment teeth, but not for recommended vs. non-recommended uses. Caution is required in restoring non-vital teeth, but the spectrum of recommended uses should generally be reconsidered and expanded, given our finding of high survival and success rates for IPS e.max ceramics, even for uses not currently recommended by the manufacturer.

Jan Brandt, DDS/Martin Brenner, DDS/Hans-Christoph Lauer, DDS/Silvia Brandt, DDS: Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of template-guided implantation planned with implant-planning software (Implant Studio), comparing computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM)?based measurements with measurements via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Thirty template-guided implantations were planned and performed on acrylic-resin models. The implant positions were detected with an intraoral scanner, evaluated with CAD quality-control software, and compared with the planned positions in the test group. Preliminary deviations were measured via CBCT in the control group of the first 10 samples and compared with the first 10 samples of the test group. Results: When directly compared, measurements obtained using CBCT (control group) showed a trend toward greater deviations. In the CAD/CAM-based evaluation of the 30 samples, the mean ? SD deviation of the insertion axis from the planned implant axis was 2.011 ? 0.855 degrees. The mean deviations of the implant shoulders in the horizontal direction and at the implant apices were 0.725 ? 0.142 mm and 0.990 ? 0.244 mm, respectively. In the vertical direction, the mean deviation was 0.541 ? 0.129 mm. Conclusion: CAD/CAM-based measurements are more accurate than CBCT measurements. Therefore, this radiation-free measurement method is a viable diagnostic alternative. Implant planning with planning software and subsequent placement using surgical templates appears to be a reliable and precise therapeutic option in vitro. However, these findings will still have to be supported by in vivo studies.

Locator^® and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients’ oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14 (OHIP-G14) was used to evaluate OHRQoL. Results were analyzed by means of Kaplan–Meier analysis and Student’s t- and log-rank tests. The records of 122 patients were evaluated. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed a significant difference between ball attachments (Group B; n patients = 47) and Locator^® attachments (Group L; n patients = 75) regarding the occurrence of denture fractures (p < 0.001) and events affecting the matrix (p = 0.028) and patrix (p = 0.030). Group L had a significantly lower total OHIP-G14 score than Group B (p = 0.002). The most common maintenance events were matrix-related and denture relining for both attachment systems. Group B required more maintenance measures than Group L. Moreover, patients in Group L had better OHRQoL than patients in Group B.