N. U. Zitzmann

Objectives Group‐2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology». Focused research questions were: (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant‐supported multi‐unit fixed dental prostheses. Materials and Methods Literature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted. Results Additively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw‐retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1‐year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant‐supported multi‐unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3‐year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates. Conclusions For interim tooth‐colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long‐term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi‐unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications.