Patient-centered rehabilitation of single, partial, and complete edentulism with cemented- or screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis: The First Osstem Advanced Dental Implant Research and Education Center Consensus Conference 2017.

The aim of this consensus conference was to provide clinical guidelines, based on the available evidence and on the author's daily practice and experience, for general dentistry and dental practitioners to allow them to delivery long-term successful restorations. Three groups of expert clinicians and dental technicians were invited to evaluate all of the scientific literature from 1967 up to March 2017 to identify relevant studies on assigned topics and to prepare in advance narrative/systematic review, written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to fulfill the consensus statement criteria. The three topics assigned to the three groups were abutment/framework materials and customization (metal vs. metal-free restorations), abutment/framework protocols and designs, and abutment/framework retentions (cemented- vs. screw-retained implant-supported prostheses). All the expert clinicians presented their results, and the lectures were followed by discussions. No significant differences in clinical parameters (marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, and pocket probing depth) between screw- or cemented-retained were found for single and multiple implant-supported restorations. There is moderate evidence that nonoriginal abutments provide worse mechanical behavior than originals and high evidence that different implant neck designs do not offer any clinical or radiographic advantage. All the participants agreed that it is desirable to connect and remove abutments as few times as possible. There is medium evidence that an adequate platform switching tends to enhance tissue volume and stability in the medium- and long-term follow-up. No statistically significant differences exist between metal and zirconia as a framework material. The authors discussed and all agreed that retrievability and patient's expectation (function and esthetics) should guide the choice of the most adequate technique, component, and material.