Technical complications and failures of zirconia-based prostheses supported by implants followed up to 7 years: a case series.

PURPOSE To evaluate technical complications and failures of zirconia-based fixed prostheses supported by implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Consecutive patients received zirconia-based single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on implants in a private clinical setting between 2005 and 2010. One dentist performed all surgical and prosthetic procedures, and one master technician performed and coordinated all laboratory procedures. One-piece computer-aided design/ computer-assisted manufacture technology was used to fabricate abutments and frameworks, which were directly connected at the implant level, where possible. All patients were involved in a recall maintenance program and were finally reviewed in 2012. Data on framework fractures, chipping of veneering ceramics, and other technical complications were recorded. The primary endpoint was failure of the prostheses, ie, the need for a complete remake. A life table analysis was calculated. RESULTS A total of 289 implants supported 193 zirconia-based prostheses (120 SCs and 73 FDPs) in 127 patients (51 men, 76 women; average age: 62.5 ± 13.4 years) who were reviewed in 2012. Twenty-five (13%) prostheses were cemented on 44 zirconia abutments and 168 (87%) prostheses were screw-retained directly at the implant level. Fracture of 3 frameworks (1 SC, 2 FDPs) was recorded, and significant chipping resulted in the remake of 3 prostheses (1 SC, 2 FDPs). The 7-year cumulative survival rate was 96.4% ± 1.99%. Minor complications comprised 5 loose screws (these were retightened), small chips associated with 3 prostheses (these were polished), and dislodgement of 3 prostheses (these were recemented). Overall, 176 prostheses remained free of technical problems. CONCLUSIONS Zirconia-based prostheses screwed directly to implants are clinically successful in the short and medium term.

Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making

Policy brokers and policy entrepreneurs are assumed to have a decisive impact on policy outcomes. Their access to social and political resources is contingent on their influence on other agents. In social network analysis (SNA), entrepreneurs are often closely associated with brokers, because both are agents presumed to benefit from bridging structural holes; for example, gaining advantage through occupying a strategic position in relational space. Our aim here is twofold. First, to conceptually and operationally differentiate policy brokers from policy entrepreneurs premised on assumptions in the policy-process literature; and second, via SNA, to use the output of core algorithms in a cross-sectional analysis of political brokerage and political entrepreneurship. We attempt to simplify the use of graph algebra in answering questions relevant to policy analysis by placing each algorithm within its theoretical context. In the methodology employed, we first identify actors and graph their relations of influence within a specific policy event; then we select the most central actors; and compare their rank in a series of statistics that capture different aspects of their network advantage. We examine betweenness centrality, positive and negative Bonacich power, Burt’s effective size and constraint and honest brokerage as paradigmatic. We employ two case studies to demonstrate the advantages and limitations of each algorithm for differentiating between brokers and entrepreneurs: one on Swiss climate policy and one on EU competition and transport policy.