Statement of problem
Clinical research has difficulty keeping pace with the rapid evolution of materials, protocols, and designs of single-unit implant restorations. The clinical design preferences of prosthodontics for different clinical scenarios are lacking.
The purpose of this cross-sectional survey was to determine the current prevalence of usage of various treatment options and materials for single-unit implant-supported restorations.
Material and methods
From August to September of 2022, a survey invitation was sent to members of the Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics (PCSP). The survey was hosted online and asked 37 questions related to the materials, protocols, and design preferences for single-unit implant-supported restorations in various clinical scenarios. The prompts included the suggestion that answers should be based on preferences for the “ideal” treatment of a hypothetical patient seeking implant treatment for the replacement of a single missing tooth.
Of 133 questionnaires sent via email, 35 were returned. The results are presented with histograms that use color coding as an experience proxy metric. A total of 87% of respondents was in private practice, and 60% reported having restored more than 1000 single-unit implant restorations. For the replacement of a single maxillary central incisor under ideal conditions and angulation through the palatal surface, respondents preferred bone level implants (93%) and screw-retained restorations (80%), with 50% of those being zirconia with a titanium abutment and 21% being cast metal-ceramic. For an identical scenario, except that the angulation would be through the facial surface, respondents preferred the angled screw system (55%) and cemented (41%) restorations. For the replacement of a single missing mandibular molar under ideal conditions, respondents preferred bone level implants (79%) and screw-retained restorations (79%), with 70% of those being zirconia with a titanium abutment and 17% being cast metal-ceramic.
While a wide range of protocols, designs, and materials exist for the replacement of a single missing tooth, these results provide a snapshot of current single-unit implant prosthodontic preferences in the Western United States and Canada.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement-and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17: 375-379
- Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 163-201
- A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 102-110
- Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics.Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2012; 14: 633-645
- Fracture resistance of crowns cemented on titanium and zirconia implant abutments: a comparison of monolithic versus manually veneered all-ceramic systems.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 1448-1455
- In vitro fatigue and fracture strength testing of one-piece zirconia implant abutments and zirconia implant abutments connected to titanium cores.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 488-493
- Influence of the implant abutment types and the dynamic loading on initial screw loosening.J Adv Prosthodont. 2013; 5: 21-28
- Clinical performance of screw-versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-A systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 84-98
- The effect of zirconia or titanium as abutment material on soft peri-implant tissues: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Imp Res. 2015; 26: 139-147
- Comparison of pro-inflammatory cytokines and bone metabolism mediators around titanium and zirconia dental implant abutments following a minimum of 6 months of clinical function.Clin Oral Imp Res. 2015; 26: e35-41
- Soft tissues stability of cad-cam and stock abutments in anterior regions: 2-year prospective multicentric cohort study.Clin Oral Imp Res. 2015; 26: 1436-1442
- Abutment material effect on peri-implant soft tissue color and perceived esthetics.J Prosthodont. 2016; 25: 634-640
- Comparison of fracture strength and failure mode of different ceramic implant abutments.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 499-506
- Influence of abutment material on peri-implant soft tissues in anterior areas with thin gingival biotype: a multicentric prospective study.Clin Oral Imp Res. 2017; 28: 1263-1268
- Stock versus CAD/CAM customized zirconia implant abutments–Clinical and patient-based outcomes in a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2017; 19: 74-84
- A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions.Clin Oral Imp Res. 2018; 29: 160-183
- Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Imp Res. 2018; 29: 124-144
- Factors affecting the decision to use cemented or screw-retained fixed implant-supported prostheses: a critical review.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 43-54
- Influence of abutment height on peri-implant marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 14-21
- A prospective study on single tooth reconstructions using parallel walled implants with internal connection (NobelParallel CC) and abutments with angulated screw channels (ASC).Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2019; 21: 226-231
- Immunohistochemical assessment of the peri-implant soft tissue around different abutment materials: a human study.Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2020; 22: 638-646
- Clinician preferences for complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: a survey of the membership of the Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 699-705
- Wear at the titanium-zirconia implant-abutment interface: a pilot study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 970-975
- Titanium tattooing associated with zirconia implant abutments: a clinical report of two cases.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 958-960
Published online: March 17, 2023
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.