Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.
Asbjorn JokstadBjarni Elvar PjeturssonSven MühlemannDaniël WismeijerStefan WolfartVincent FehmerJan Frederik GüthLucrezia Paterno HoltzmanChristoph H F HämmerleNikolay MakarovHenny J A MeijerIva MilinkovicIrena SailerFrank A SpitznagelStefan VandewegheTommie Van de VeldeMarcel ZwahlenPetra C GiertmuehlenPublished in: Clinical oral implants research (2021)
(i) There is limited evidence (49 NRCT) showing that veneered and monolithic all-ceramic iSCs have excellent outcomes observed up to 3 years. (ii) There is no evidence evaluating production time and effectiveness comparing subtractive and additive CAM of implant models, abutments and crowns. (iii) There is limited evidence (4 RCT) that CAIPS involves more time and costs when considering the entire workflow and for diagnostics, manufacturing, and insertion of the restoration. Time seems to be the decisive factor for higher costs. (iv) Patients' comfort increases when optical compared to conventional impressions are used for fabricating iSCs and short-span FPDs (2 RCT, 5 NRCT).