The tasks of Working Groups 1 to 6 at the 4th Consensus Meeting of the Oral Reconstruction Foundation were to elucidate clinical recommendations for implant-supported full-arch rehabilitations in edentulous patients. Six systematic/ narrative reviews were prepared to address the following subtopics: (1) the influence of medical and geriatric factors on implant survival; (2) the prevalence of peri-implant diseases; (3) the influence of material selection, attachment type, interarch space, and opposing dentition; (4) different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla; (5) different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible; and (6) treatment choice and decision-making in elderly patients. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were determined based on structured group discussions and plenary session approval.

Recent attempts in the development of novel zirconia ceramics aim at improving its optical characteristics by increasing the yttria content to up to 5 mol% so that these ceramics can be used for the fabrication of stable and esthetic monolithic restorations. However, clinical evidence on the outcomes of such restorations is sparse. In this case report, monolithic inlays, partial crowns, tooth- and implant-supported single crowns, and fixed dental prostheses were fabricated out of a zirconia ceramic doped with 5 mol% yttria. The restorations in the present case history report showed a satisfying esthetic outcome and are in situ as inserted 18 months after insertion.

Purpose: The digitization of scanbodies on dental implants is required to use computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture processes for implant prosthetics. Little is known about the accuracy of scanbody digitization with intraoral scanners and dental lab scanners. This study aimed to examine the precision of different intraoral digital impression systems as well as a dental lab scanner using commercially available implant scanbodies. Materials and Methods: Two study models with a different number and distribution of dental implant scanbodies were produced from conventional implant impressions. The study models were scanned using three different intraoral scanners (iTero, Cadent; Trios, 3Shape; and True Definition, 3M ESPE) and a dental lab scanner (D250, 3Shape). For each study model, 10 scans were performed per scanner to produce repeated measurements for the calculation of precision. The distance and angulation between the respective scanbodies were measured. The results of each scanning system were compared using analysis of variance, and post hoc Tukey test was conducted for a pairwise comparison of scanning devices. Results: The precision values of the scanbodies varied according to the distance between the scanbodies and the scanning device. A distance of a single tooth space and a jaw-traversing distance between scanbodies produced significantly different results for distance and angle measurements between the scanning systems (P .05). Conclusion: The precision of intraoral scanners and the dental lab scanner was significantly different. The precision of intraoral scanners decreased with an increasing distance between the scanbodies, whereas the precision of the dental lab scanner was independent of the distance between the scanbodies.