| 1. |
- Albrektsson, Tomas, 1945, et al.
(författare)
-
Implant survival and complications. The Third EAO consensus conference 2012.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Clinical oral implants research. - : Wiley. - 1600-0501 .- 0905-7161. ; 23 Suppl 6, s. 63-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The task of this working group was to analyze biological, technical and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants and fixed dental prostheses with or without cantilevers on implants over 5 years or more. In addition, the group analyzed economic aspects on such implant treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Alissa, Rami, et al.
(författare)
-
Einfluss von Ibuprofen auf die Knochenheilung an Dentalimplantaten Eine randomisierte klinische Doppelblindstudie mit Plazebokontrolle : Effect of Ibuprofen of the bone cure in case of dental implants A random clinical double blind, placebo-controlled study
- 2010
-
Ingår i: IMPLANTOLOGIE. - 0943-9692. ; 18:1, s. 61-76
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Diese randomisierte plazebokontrollierte Doppelblindstudie wurde durchgeführt, um den Einfluss postoperativer Gaben von 600 mg Ibuprofen (eine Woche lang viermal täglich) auf das marginale Knochenniveau rund um Dentalimplantate zu untersuchen. Insgesamt wurden 61 Patienten entweder der Ibuprofen-Gruppe (n = 31) oder der Plazebo-Gruppe (n = 30) zugeordnet. Von 132 eingesetzten Implantaten entfielen 67 auf die Ibuprofen-Gruppe und 65 auf die Plazebo-Gruppe. Die Präparation der Implantatstollen erfolgte per intermittierender Bohrabfolge, angepasst an die Implantatdurchmesser und die lokale Knochenqualität entsprechend den Implantationsrichtlinien von Astra Tech. Untersucht wurden in erster Linie die Veränderungen des marginalen Knochenniveaus an den Dentalimplantaten vom Ausgangspunkt zwei Wochen nach der Implantation bis zu den Röntgenuntersuchungen nach drei und sechs Monaten. Die Zahnfilme wurden in Paralleltechnik unter Verwendung eines Filmhalters mit Strahlenleitvorrichtung aufgenommen. Mit Sichtbox und Handlupe (Vergrößerungsfaktor 8) wurde gemessen, wie stark sich das Knochenniveau veränderte. Zwei Patienten aus der Ibuprofen-Gruppe konnten die verordnete Anwendung des Medikaments wegen einer geringfügigen subjektiven Magenverstimmung nicht zu Ende führen. In der Kontrollgruppe erschien ein Patient zu keinem einzigen der vereinbarten Termine nach den Implantationen. Somit gab es insgesamt drei Studienabbrecher. Während der sechsmonatigen Beobachtungsdauer blieben alle Implantate in beiden Gruppen intakt. In der Ibuprofen-Gruppe reduzierten sich die Ausgangswerte beim Knochenniveau nach drei Monaten um durchschnittlich 0,33 mm und nach sechs Monaten um 0,29 mm. In der Plazebo-Gruppe waren diese Werte um 0,12 mm beziehungsweise 0,30 mm reduziert. Signifikante Gruppenunterschiede beim mittleren marginalen Knochenniveau zeigten sich weder nach drei (p = 0,27) noch nach sechs Monaten (p = 0,97). Es wurde geschlussfolgert, dass kurzfristige systemische Schmerzbehandlungen mit Ibuprofen in der frühen Einheilphase von Implantaten offenbar keinen signifikanten Einfluss auf den marginalen Knochen an Dentalimplantaten haben.
|
|
| 3. |
- Alissa, Rami, et al.
(författare)
-
The influence of platelet-rich plasma on the healing of extraction sockets: an explorative randomised clinical trial
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 3:2, s. 121-134
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on the healing of hard and soft tissues of extraction sockets with a pilot study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients undergoing tooth extraction under intravenous sedation were asked to participate in the trial. Autologous platelet concentrates were prepared from the patients' blood and autologous thrombin was produced. Outcome measures were: pain level, analgesic consumption, oral function (ability to eat food, swallowing, mouth opening and speech), general activity, swelling, bruising, bleeding, bad taste or halitosis, food stagnation, patient satisfaction, healing complications, soft tissue healing, trabecular pattern of newly formed bone in extraction sockets, trabecular bone volume, trabecular separation, trabecular length, trabecular width, and trabecular number. Patients were followed up to 3 months post-extraction. RESULTS: Twelve patients (15 sockets) were randomly allocated to the PRP group and 11 patients (14 sockets) to the control group. Two patients from the control group did not attend any of the scheduled appointments following tooth extraction, and were considered dropouts. Additionally, one more patient from the control group and four patients from the PRP group did not attend their 3-month radiographic assessment appointments. Statistically significantly more pain was recorded in the control group for the first (P=0.02), second (P=0.02) and third (P=0.04) post-operative days for Visual Analogue Scale scores, whereas no differences were observed for the fourth (P=0.17), fifth (P=0.38), sixth (P=0.75) and seventh (P=0.75) post-operative days. There was a statistically significantly higher analgesic consumption for the first (P=0.03) and second (P=0.02) post-operative days in the control group and no differences thereafter. Differences in patients' responses in the health-related quality of life questionnaire were statistically significant in favour of PRP treatment only for the presence of bad taste or bad smell in the mouth (P=0.03), and food stagnation in the operation area (P=0.03). The difference between groups was not statistically significant for patient satisfaction with the treatment (P=0.31). Regarding complications, two dry sockets and one acutely inflamed alveolus occurred in patients of the control group, which determined a borderline statistically significant difference in favour of the PRP group (P=0.06). Soft tissue healing was significantly better in patients treated with PRP (P=0.03). Radiographic evaluation carried out by the two blinded examiners revealed a statistically significant difference (P=0.01) for sockets with dense homogeneous trabecular pattern, a borderline statistically significant difference in the trabecular pattern for bone volume (P=0.06) favouring PRP use, and no significant differences for trabecular separation (P=0.66), trabecular length (P=0.16), trabecular width (P=0.16) and trabecular number (P=0.38). CONCLUSIONS: PRP may have some benefits in reducing complications such as alveolar osteitis and improving healing of soft tissue of extraction sockets. There were insufficient data to support the use of PRP to promote bone healing or to enhance the quality of life of patients following tooth extraction, although the sample size was too small to detect statistically significant differences.
|
|
| 4. |
- Arduino, P. G., et al.
(författare)
-
Single preoperative dose of prophylactic amoxicillin versus a 2-day postoperative course in dental implant surgery: A two-centre randomised controlled trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:2, s. 143-149
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate the difference between a single preoperative dose versus an additional two-day postoperative course of oral amoxicillin in patients undergoing conventional dental implant placement. Materials and methods: Two dentists in two different private practices conducted this study. One hour prior to surgery, patients had to take a single prophylactic antibiotic dose, consisting of 2 g of amoxicillin orally; after implant placement, patients were randomly allocated to two different groups: protocol A (no other antibiotic administration) and protocol B, (1 g of amoxicillin in the evening of the day of surgery and 1 g twice a day for the 2 days after). Outcome measures were prosthetic and implant failures, adverse events and early postoperative complications. Patients were followed up to 6 months after functional loading. Results: Three hundred and sixty patients were randomised and treated (192 patients in one centre and 168 in the other). Five hundred and sixty-seven implants were placed. Protocol A was applied to 180 patients (278 implants) and protocol B also to 180 patients (289 implants). Data for 17 patients, 14 from protocol A and three from protocol B, were not available. No statistically significant differences were found for the reported outcomes. Two patients of protocol B experienced a prosthetic failure, losing four implants, while no prosthetic failures were reported for protocol A (P = 0.4836; difference in proportions = -0.0110; 95% Cl: -0.0412 to 0.0119). Five patients (3.0%) of protocol A lost five implants versus 5 patients (2.8%) who lost eight implants in protocol B (P = 1.0000; difference in proportions = 0.0020; 95% Cl: -0.0384 to 0.0438). Three adverse events were observed in the total population, all occurring in protocol B (1.69%), with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.1199; difference in proportions =-0.0170; 95% Cl: -0.0487 to 0.0059). However, one patient experienced a severe allergic reaction requiring therapy discontinuation and hospital admission. Early postoperative complications occurred in six patients of protocol A and in four patients of protocol B, with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.5170; difference in proportions = 0.0130; 95% Cl: -0.0254 to 0.0568). Conclusions: No statistically significant differences were observed between 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin and an additional 2-day postoperative course, although adverse events were reported only in the additional 2-day postoperative group. Based on these findings, it might be sufficient to routinely administer preoperatively 2 g of amoxicillin to patients undergoing routine dental implant placement procedures rather than administering additional postoperative doses.
|
|
| 5. |
- Atieh, M. A., et al.
(författare)
-
ALVEOLAR RIDGE PRESERVATION: A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015. ; 3:3, s. 5-36
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE. To evaluate the effects of various materials and techniques for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP in patients requiring dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool. Data were analysed using a statistical software program. RESULTS. A total of 16 RCTs with 524 extraction sockets in 426 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed a very low certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (mean difference (MD)-1.18 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI)-1.82 to-0.54; P = 0.0003) and height (MD-1.35 mm, 95% CI-2.00 to-0.70; P < 0.0001) in favour of xenograft when compared to extraction alone. There are no significant differences in the need for additional augmentation or implant failure between xenograft and extraction alone. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. CONCLUSIONS. ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP.
|
|
| 6. |
- Atieh, Momen A, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. - 1469-493X. ; :5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used.To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 July 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 July 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 July 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 22 July 2014), the Meta Register of Current Controlled Trials (to 22 July 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 22 July 2014), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 22 July 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22 July 2014), Scopus (1966 to 22 July 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 22 July 2014) and OpenGrey (to 22 July 2014). A number of journals were also handsearched. Trial authors were contacted to identify unpublished randomised controlled trials. There were no restrictions regarding language and date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases.We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of alveolar ridge preservation techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.Two review authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. Results were combined using random-effects models with mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings.A total of 50 trials were potentially eligible for inclusion, of which 42 trials were excluded. We included eight RCTs with a total of 233 extraction sites in 184 participants. One trial was judged to be at unclear risk of bias and the remaining trials were at high risk of bias. From two trials comparing xenograft with extraction alone (70 participants, moderate quality evidence), there was some evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -2.60 mm; 95% CI -3.43 to -1.76) and width (MD -1.97 mm; 95% CI -2.48 to -1.46). This was also found in one trial comparing allograft with extraction (24 participants, low quality evidence): ridge height (MD -2.20 mm; 95% CI -0.75 to -3.65) and width (MD - 1.40 mm; 95% CI 0.00 to -2.80) and height. From two RCTs comparing alloplast versus xenograft no evidence was found that either ridge preservation technique caused a smaller reduction in loss of ridge height (MD -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.86 to 0.16) or width (MD -0.44 mm; 95% CI -0.90 to 0.02; two trials (55 participants); moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques and extraction based on the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, complications, implant failure, or changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels and probing depths of neighbouring teeth. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes.There is limited evidence that ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction. There is also lack of evidence of any differences in implant failure, aesthetic outcomes or any other clinical parameters due to the lack of information or long-term data. There is no convincing evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
|
|
| 7. |
- Azaripour, A., et al.
(författare)
-
SOFT TISSUE SUBSTITUTES AT IMMEDIATE POST-EXTRACTIVE IMPLANTS TO REDUCE TISSUE SHRINKAGE – 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015. ; 3:3, s. 47-57
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE. The aim of this parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate whether placement of a soft tissue graft substitute (STGS) could decrease peri-implant tissue shrinkage at immediate post-extractive implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty patients with one missing tooth between two adja-cent healthy teeth in aesthetic areas and at least 4 mm of bone apically to the tooth apex were randomly allocated after tooth extraction to receive or not a subepithelial buccal STGS. Implants were inserted with a torque of at least 30 Ncm and sites were grafted with a cancellous particulate allograft. Ten patients received a buccal STGS and 10 patients did not (control group). All patients were restored with non-occluding immediate provisional screw-retained crowns, replaced after 6 months by definitive metal-ceramic crowns, and were followed to 3-year after grafting/loading. RESULTS. Three-year after loading, no drop-out, crown or implant failure or complication occurred. No statistically significant difference or trends in aesthetics (difference = 0.2, 95% CI:-0.81 to 1.21; P = 0.97), peri-implant marginal bone loss (difference = 0.14 mm; 95% CI:-0.27 to 0.57; P = 0.58) and keratinized mucosa heights (difference = 0.8 mm; 95% CI:-1.79 to 3.39; P = 0.57) between the two groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS. Acknowledging that the sample size was small, no clinical benefits could be observed using a soft tissue graft substitute at immediate post-extractive implants up to 3-year after grafting. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT. The manufacturer (BEGO Implant Systems, Bremen, Germany) of the implants used in this investigation, partially supported this trial, however data belonged to the authors and by no means the sponsor interfered with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Barausse, Carlo, et al.
(författare)
-
POSTERIOR JAW REHABILITATION USING PARTIAL PROSTHESES SUPPORTED BY IMPLANTS 4.0 X 4.0 MM OR LONGER: THREE-YEAR POST-LOADING RESULTS OF A MULTICENTRE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015 .- 2785-3039. ; 1, s. 25-36
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE. To evaluate whether 4.0 x 4.0-mm dental implants could be viable alternatives to implants of length at least 8.5 mm when placed in posterior jaws with adequate bone volumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred and fifty patients with posterior (premolar and molar areas) jaws having at least 12.5 mm bone height above the mandibular canal or 11.5 mm below the maxillary sinus, as applicable, were randomised according to a paral-lel-group design and received one to three 4.0 mm-long implants or one to three implants which were at least 8.5 mm-long at three treatment centres. All implants had a diameter of 4.0 mm. Implants were loaded with permanent screw-retained prostheses after 4 months. Patients were followed-up until 3-year post-loading, and outcome measures considered were prosthesis and implant failure, any complications, and changes in pe-ri-implant marginal bone levels. RESULTS. Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated to each group. Drop-outs at 3-year post-loading assessment were five patients from the long implant group and three from the short implant group. Up to 3 years post-loadings, three patients lost one 4.0 mm-long implant each, in comparison to two patients who lost one long implant each (difference in proportion =-0.013; 95% CI:-0.079 to 0.054; P = 1). All failures occurred before loading; failed implants were replaced, delaying delivery of two prostheses in each group by several months (difference in proportion = 0; 95% CI:-0.061 to 0.062; P = 1). Five short-implant patients experienced six complications versus the three complications seen in three long implant patients (difference in proportion =-0.026; 95% CI:-0.103 to 0.053; P = 0.719). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in prosthesis failures, implant failures or complications. Patients with short implants lost on average 0.55 mm of peri-implant bone, and patients with longer implants lost 0.61 mm. There were no statistically significant differences between short and long implants in bone level changes up to 3 years (mean difference = 0.05 mm; 95% CI:-0.05 to 0.16; P = 0.221). CONCLUSIONS. Outcomes 3 years after loading were similar with 4.0 x 4.0 mm-long implants and 8.5 x 4.0 mm or longer implants in posterior jaws, in the presence of adequate bone volumes. However, 5 to 10-year post-loading data will be necessary before reliable recommendations can be made. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT. Global D (Brignais, France) partially supported this trial and donated the implants and prosthetic components. OsteoBiol (Tecnoss, Giaveno, Italy) donated the biomaterials used for bone augmentation. However, the data property belonged to the authors and neither Global D nor OsteoBiol interfered in any way with the conduct of the trial or the publication of the results.
|
|
