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.

Cemented versus screw‐retained posterior implant‐supported single crowns: A 24‐month randomized controlled 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.

Clinical Effect of Nobel Biocare Angulated Screw Channel Crown Compared with Cement Crown in the Aesthetic Area: A Retrospective Cohort Study with a Mean 32 Months Follow-Up (range 12 to 70 Months).

Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns

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

Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Monolithic Hybrid Abutment Crowns (Screw‐Retained) Versus Monolithic Hybrid Abutments With Monolithic Crowns (Adhesively Cemented): Three‐Year Data of a Prospective Clinical Split‐Mouth Study

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

Clinical Evaluation and Quantitative Occlusal Change Analysis of Posterior Implant-Supported All-Ceramic Crowns: A 3-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

A 7.5‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained one‐piece zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns

Cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the molar mandibular region: A retrospective comparison study after an observation period of 1 to 4 years

Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results

Clinical success of implant-supported and tooth–implant-supported double crown-retained dentures

Clinical performance and risk factors of all‐ceramic screw‐retained implant crowns in the posterior region based on a retrospective investigation

Implant‐supported single all‐ceramic crowns made from prefabricated (stock) or individualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutments: A 5 year randomized clinical trial

In vitro performance and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated implant supported molar crowns

Implant-Supported Extra-Orally Cemented Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: A Prospective Controlled Clinical Study up to 18 Months in Function

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

Clinical Performance of Complete-Arch Implant- Supported Rehabilitations Using Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Restorations Bonded to CAD/CAM Titanium and Zirconia Frameworks up to 5 Years

Retrospective, Multi-center, Cohort Study Evaluating Clinical, Technical, Biological, and Esthetic Outcomes of Implant Supported Zirconia Single Crowns Cemented on Titanium-base Abutments: 7-year Mean Follow-up