Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40802222›Full record

GuidelineInternational journal of implant dentistry2025

German S3 guideline on implant-supported all-ceramic restorations.

Lukas Waltenberger, Shaza Bishti, Stefan Wolfart

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07323290 (Twelve-Month Short-Term Marginal Bone Remodeling at Monolithic Zirconia Full-Arch Prostheses in the Maxilla and Mandible), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07323290 completednot on this map

Twelve-Month Short-Term Marginal Bone Remodeling at Monolithic Zirconia Full-Arch Prostheses in the Maxilla and Mandible: A Clinical Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversitat Internacional de CatalunyaRan2024 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsEdentulism, Implant DentistryArmsNo intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic Review Evaluating the Influence of Veneering Design on the Clinical Outcome of All-Ceramic Implant-Supported 3-4 Units and Full Arch Fixed Dental Prostheses.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lukas WaltenbergerDepartment of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center for Implantology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, Aachen, 52074, Germany. lwaltenberger@ukaachen.de.
Shaza BishtiDepartment of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center for Implantology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, Aachen, 52074, Germany.
Stefan WolfartDepartment of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center for Implantology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, Aachen, 52074, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWith increasing demand for aesthetic, metal-free restorations, all-ceramic materials have gained popularity in implant prosthodontics. However, questions regarding their long-term performance, material selection, and design features remain unresolved. This guideline, developed by the German Association of Oral Implantology (DGI) in collaboration with the German Society of Dentistry and Oral Medicine (DGZMK), aims to enhance treatment safety, guide clinical decision-making, and improve patient education concerning all-ceramic implant-supported restorations.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of all-ceramic restorations in three main indications: implant-supported single crowns, short-span fixed dental prostheses, and full-arch restorations. Recommendations were developed based on the quality of evidence or expert consensus.

resultsFor single crowns, lithium disilicate, silicate ceramics, and all generations of zirconia demonstrated favorable 3-year survival rates (~ 96-97%). In contrast, polymer-infiltrated ceramics showed inferior performance and were not recommended. For short-span FDPs and full-arch reconstructions, only 3Y-TZP zirconia is supported by clinical evidence. Micro-veneering and monolithic designs reduce chipping risks. Patient education is emphasized due to limited evidence for newer materials and full-arch restorations.

conclusionsAll-ceramic implant restorations can be successfully implemented with careful material selection, adherence to bonding protocols, and appropriate prosthetic design. However, clinical limitations persist, especially in full-arch indications. Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential to optimize outcomes and minimize complications.

Indexed as

CeramicsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedCrownsGermanyHumansAll-ceramicBridgeConsensusCrownEvidence-based dentistryFDPFull-archGuidelineImplant-supported fixed dental prosthesisProsthodontics

Identifiers

PMID40802222
PMCPMC12350975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.