Claudia Todaro

Background: Traditional screw or cemented connections in dental implants present limitations, prompting the exploration of alternative methods. This study assesses the clinical outcomes of single crowns and fixed partial prostheses supported by conometric connections after one year of follow-up. Methods: Twenty-two patients received 70 implants, supporting 33 rehabilitations. Biological responses and prosthodontic complications were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Results: All implants exhibited successful osseointegration, with no losses or peri-implant inflammation. Marginal bone levels showed minimal changes, well below pathological thresholds. The difference in marginal bone loss (MBL) was −0.27 ± 0.79 mm between T0 and T1, and −0.51 ± 0.93 mm between T0 and T2. No abutment screw loosening or crown chipping occurred. However, coupling stability loss was observed in nine cases. Conclusions: The conometric connection demonstrated successful integration and minimal complications after one year. This alternative shows promise, particularly in simplifying handling and improving marginal adaptation. Further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up is warranted for comprehensive validation.

Objective: complex rehabilitations present multiple difficulties, regarding both the planification of the surgery and the design of the prothesis. A digital approach can support the workflow, as well as the degree of intraoperative precision, and improve the long-term prognosis. Methods: A surgical guide was designed for implant placement. An extensive regeneration of the upper jaw was performed with contextual implant insertion, and a delayed load rehabilitation was chosen. After four months, a second surgery and a simultaneous soft tissue augmentation was performed, and a 3D-printed temporary restoration was placed. After another two months, new dental and facial scans, smile design, and facial bite registrations were obtained. Upper and lower dentures were built using an exclusively digital workflow. Both metal substructures were passivated and cemented in one session; in the following appointment, the aesthetic and occlusal checks were carried out. During the third visit, both prostheses were delivered. Results: Careful case planning and the surgical guide made it possible to achieve primary stability and acceptable emergence profiles in an extremely reabsorbed upper jaw. Leukocyte-Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) made the extensive bone regeneration more approachable and lowered the post-operative pain and swelling, while speeding up the soft tissue healing process. During the re-entry surgery, the volumes of soft tissues were increased to improve aesthetics, and the amount of keratinized gingiva around the six implants was also increased. Smile design and facial scans have provided the means to create acceptable aesthetics and function in a few sessions with minimal patient discomfort. Conclusions: Computer-assisted implantology is a safe and precise method of performing dental implant surgery. Preliminary studies have a high degree of accuracy, but further studies are needed to arrive at a fully digital clinical protocol at all stages.