Abstract: To compare the clinical performance of posterior single implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by full digital workflow and that of those fabricated by conventional workflow. This is prospective clinical research. Thirty-five patients who participated in a previous study during August 2017 to October 2018 at Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology were included in this 3-year follow-up study. The 35 patients, 17 females and 18 males, aged (49.0±15.4) years (24-86 years old), was allocated into two groups. In the full digital workflow group, intraoral scanning was taken immediately after implant placement, and a full zirconia implant crown was fabricated using model-free computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) procedure (=14). In the conventional group, a conventional impression was taken 3 months after implant placement and the stone model was produced. A full zirconia implant crown was fabricated using conventional model-based procedure (=21). Three years following crown delivery, all the prostheses were evaluated in the aspect of color, surface roughness, contour and marginal integrity using modified US Public Health Service criteria (MUSPHS criteria). The soft and hard tissue around implant was evaluated using modified plaque index, probing depth (PD), number of implants with bleeding on probing, marginal bone loss (MBL). The biological and mechanical complication were also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using independent samples test, Mann-Whitney test and Fisher's exact test. The total survival rate of prosthesis and implant was 100% (35/35). No significant difference in MUSPHS criteria ratings on color, surface roughness, contour and marginal integrity of these crowns were found between the full digital workflow group and the conventional group (>0.05). Sixteen out of the 35 crowns had a contour score of B due to loss of interproximal contact. Ten out of the 35 crowns had the screw hole sealing resin sinking or falling off, four in the full digital workflow group and six in the conventional group. There was no significant difference in the rate of prostheses mechanical complications between the two groups (=1.000). For all the implants, there was no significant difference in MBL, PD, the modified plaque index, and number of implants with bleeding on probing between the two groups (=119.50,133.00,142.50, =-0.53, >0.05). The clinical performance of implant-supported posterior single monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by full digital workflow was stable. There was no significant difference in the clinical performance of the single implant crowns between the full digital workflow group and the conventional group.

Clinical and immunological evaluation of peri-implant tissues around ultra-polished and conventionally-polished zirconia abutments. A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial

Peri-implant Marginal Bone Changes with Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic or Monolithic Zirconia Single Crowns: A Retrospective Clinical Study of 1 to 5 Years.

Prospective controlled clinical study investigating long‐term clinical parameters, patient satisfaction, and microbial contamination of zirconia implants

One-piece versus two-piece zirconia abutment supported single implant crown in the esthetic region: 3-Year results from a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia and titanium implants in the posterior zone after 1 year of loading-A randomized controlled trial

Five-year outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing single-tooth implant-supported restoration with either zirconia or titanium abutments

A multicenter randomized controlled clinical pilot study of buccally micro-veneered lithium-disilicate and zirconia crowns supported by titanium base abutments: 1-year outcomes

An In Vivo Investigation of Non-Metallic vs. Metallic Hand Scalers on Zirconia Implant-Supported Crowns: A Year-Long Analysis of Peri-Implant Maintenance

[Effect of Customized Zirconia Abutment on Peri-Implant Tissue: a One-Year Prospective Study].

Effect of restoration material on marginal bone resorption around modified anatomic zirconia dental implants: A randomised controlled trial

13-year follow-up of a randomized controlled study on zirconia and titanium abutments

Peri-implant and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns using zirconia abutments in single implant-supported restorations-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws with predominantly monolithic zirconia compared to metal-acrylic prostheses: a 2-year retrospective clinical study

A 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia-based versus metal-based implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the premolar region

[Clinical outcome of single posterior implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated using full digital workflow and conventional workflow: a 3-year follow-up].

Effect of CAD/CAM Abutment Morphology on the Outcomes of Implant Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design

Findings of a Four-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Two-Piece and One-Piece Zirconia Abutments Supporting Single Prosthetic Restorations in Maxillary Anterior Region

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Abutment for Implant- Supported Single-Tooth Restoration in Anterior Region

Comparison of the effect of zirconia and titanium abutments on peri-implant hard and soft tissues

Peri-implant Crestal Bone Changes Around Zirconia Implants in Periodontally Healthy and Compromised Patients.