| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Davó, Rubén, et al.
(författare)
-
Immediately loaded zygomatic implants vs conventional dental implants in augmented atrophic maxillae: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:2, s. 145-161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare the clinical outcome of immediately loaded cross-arch maxillary prostheses supported by zygomatic implants vs conventional implants placed in augmented bone.In total, 71 edentulous patients with severely atrophic maxillas without sufficient bone volumes for placing dental implants, or when it was possible to place only two implants in the anterior area (minimal diameter 3.5 mm and length of 8 mm) and less than 4 mm of bone height subantrally, were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive zygomatic implants (35 patients) to be loaded immediately vs grafting with a xenograft, followed after 6 months of graft consolidation by placement of six to eight conventional dental implants submerged for 4 months (36 patients). For immediate loading, zygomatic implants had to be inserted with an insertion torque superior to 40 Ncm. Screw-retained metal reinforced acrylic provisional prostheses were provided, to be replaced by definitive Procera Implant Bridge Titanium prostheses (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden), with ceramic or acrylic veneer materials 4 months after initial loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis, implant and augmentation failures, any complications, quality of life (OHIP-14), patients' number of days with total or partial impaired activity, time to function and number of dental visits, assessed by independent assessors. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading.No augmentation procedure failed. Five patients dropped out from the augmentation group. Six prostheses could not be delivered or failed in the augmentation group vs one prosthesis in the zygomatic group, the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = -16.5%; P = 0.045; 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.01). Eight patients lost 35 implants in the augmentation group vs two patients who lost four zygomatic implants, the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = -20.1%; P = 0.037; 95% CI: -0.38 to -0.02). A total of 14 augmented patients were affected by 22 complications, vs 28 zygomatic patients (40 complications), the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = 34.8%; P = 0.005; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54). The 1-year OHIP-14 score was 3.93 ± 5.86 for augmented patients and 3.97 ± 4.32 for zygomatic patients with no statistically significant differences between groups (mean difference = 0.04; 95% CI: -2.56 to 2.65; P = 0.747). Both groups had significantly improved OHIP-14 scores from before rehabilitation (P < 0.001 for both augmented and zygomatic patients). On average, the number of days of total infirmity was 7.42 ± 3.17 for the augmented group and 7.17 ± 1.96 for the zygomatic group, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -0.25; 95% CI: -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.692). The number of days of partial infirmity were on average 14.24 ± 4.64 for the augmented group and 12.17 ± 3.82 for the zygomatic group, the difference being statistically significant (mean difference = -2.07; 95% CI: -4.12 to -0.02; P = 0.048). The mean number of days that needed to have a functional prosthesis was 444.32 ± 207.86 for augmented patients and 1.34 ± 2.27 for zygomatic patients, the difference being statistically significant (mean difference = -442.98; 95% CI: -513.10 to -372.86; P < 0.001). The average number of dental visits was 19.72 ± 12.22 for augmented patients and 15.12 ± 5.76 for zygomatic patients, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -4.61; 95% CI: -9.31 to 0.92; P = 0.055).Preliminary 1-year post-loading data suggest that immediately loaded zygomatic implants were associated with statistically significantly fewer prosthetic failures (one vs six patients), implant failures (two vs eight patients) and time needed to functional loading (1.3 days vs 444.3 days) when compared to augmentation procedures and conventionally loaded dental implants. Even if more complications were reported for zygomatic implants, they proved to be a better rehabilitation modality for severely atrophic maxillae. Long-term data are absolutely needed to confirm or dispute these preliminary results.
|
|
| 4. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Conventional drills vs piezoelectric surgery preparation for placement of four immediately loaded zygomatic oncology implants in edentulous maxillae: results from 1-year split-mouth randomised controlled trial.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:2, s. 147-158
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare the outcome of site preparation for zygomatic oncology implants using conventional preparation with rotary drills or piezoelectric surgery with dedicated inserts for placing two zygomatic implants per zygoma according to a split-mouth design.Twenty edentulous patients with severely atrophic maxillas not having sufficient bone volume for placing dental implants and less than 4mm of bone height subantrally had their hemi-maxillas randomised according to a split-mouth design into implant site preparation with conventional rotational drills or piezoelectric surgery. Two zygomatic oncology implants (unthreaded coronal portion) were placed in each hemi-maxilla. Implants that achieved an insertion torque superior to 40Ncm were immediately loaded with screw-retained metal reinforced acrylic provisional prostheses. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, time to place the implants, presence of post-operative haematoma, and patient's preference by independent assessors. All patients were followed up to 1 year after loading.In two patients drills had also to be used at the piezoelectric surgery side to enable implant sites to be prepared. One implant for the conventional drill group did not achieve an insertion torque superior to 40Ncm since it fractured the zygoma. No patients dropped out and two distal oncology implants failed in the same patient (one per group), who was not prosthetically rehabilitated. Six complications occurred at drilled sites and three at piezoelectric surgery sites (two patients had bilateral complications), the difference being not statistically significant (P (McNemar's test)=0.375; odds ratio=4.00; 95% CI of odds ratio: 0.45 to 35.79). Implant placement with convention drills took on average 14.35±1.76min and with piezoelectric surgery 23.50±2.26min, implant placement time being significantly shorter with conventional drilling (difference=9.15±1.69min; 95%CI: 8.36 to 9.94min; P<0.001). Post-operative haematomas were more frequent at drilled sites (P=0.001), and 16 patients found both techniques equally acceptable, while four preferred piezoelectric surgery (P=0.125).Both drilling techniques achieved similar clinical results, but conventional drilling required 9min less and could be used in all instances, although it was more aggressive. These results may be system-dependent, therefore they cannot be generalised to other zygomatic systems with confidence. Conflict-of-interest statement: This study was partially supported by Southern Implants (Irene, South Africa), the manufacturer of the zygomatic implants and the conventional drills evaluated in this study. However, data property belonged to the authors and by no means did the manufacturer interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results. Drs Felice and Pistilli developed the piezoelectric surgery zygomatic insert used in the present study.
|
|
| 5. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Posterior jaws rehabilitated with partial prostheses supported by 4.0 x 4.0 mm or by longer implants: Four-month post-loading data from a randomised controlled trial.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:3, s. 221-30
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To evaluate whether 4.0 x 4.0 mm dental implants could be an alternative to implants at least 8.5 mm long, which were placed in posterior jaws in the presence of adequate bone volumes.One hundred and fifty patients with posterior (premolar and molar areas) mandibles having at least 12.5 mm bone height above the mandibular canal or 11.5 mm bone height below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel group design, in order to receive one to three 4.0 mm-long implants or one to three implants which were at least 8.5 mm long, at three centres. All implants had a diameter of 4.0 mm. Implants were loaded after 4 months with definitive screw-retained prostheses. Patients were followed up to 4-month post-loading and outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.No patients dropped-out before the 4-month evaluation. Three patients experienced the early failures of one 4.0 mm-long implant each, in comparison to two patients who lost one long implant each (difference in proportion = 0.01; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; P = 0.50). Consequently, two prostheses in each group could not be delivered as planned (difference in proportion = 0; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07; P = 0.69), and one patient from each group is still waiting to have their prostheses delivered. Three short implant patients experienced three complications versus two long implant patients (difference in proportion = 0.01; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; P = 0.50). There were no statistically significant differences in prosthesis failures, implant failures and complications. Patients with short implants lost on average 0.38 mm of peri-implant bone at 4 months and patients with long mandibular implants lost 0.42 mm. There were no statistically significant differences in bone level changes up to 4 months between short and long implants (mean difference = 0.04 mm; 95% CI: -0.041 to 0.117; P = 0.274).Four months after loading, 4.0 x 4.0 mm implants achieved similar results as 8.5 x 4.0 mm-long or longer implants in posterior jaws, however 5 to 10 years post-loading data are necessary before reliable recommendations can be made.
|
|
| 6. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: One-year post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:3, s. 257-68
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To evaluate whether short (5.0 to 8.5 mm) dental implants could be a suitable alternative to longer (at least 11.5 mm-long) implants placed in atrophic maxillae augmented with autogenous bone for supporting dental prostheses.Twenty-eight patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae, whom had 5 to 9 mm of residual crestal bone height which was at least 5 mm thick, measured using computerised tomography (CT) scans, were randomised into two groups either to receive 4 to 8 short (5.0 to 8.5 mm) implants (15 patients) or autogenous bone from the iliac crest to allow the placement of at least 11.5 mm-long implants (13 patients). Bone blocks and the windows at the maxillary sinuses were covered with rigid resorbable barriers. Grafts were left to heal for 4 months before placing implants which were submerged. After 4 months, provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses or bar retained overdentures were delivered. Provisional prostheses were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive screw-retained metal-resin cross-arch restorations. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes and patient satisfaction. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading.All patients were rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses but two patients dropped out from the augmented group. One bilateral sinus lift procedure failed for infection, although short implants could be placed. One implant failed in the augmented group versus two short implants in two patients (Fishers exact test P = 1.00; difference in proportions = 0.06; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.17). All failures occurred before loading. Significantly more complications occurred in augmented patients: eight complications occurred in 5 augmented patients (all of them complained of pain 1 month after bone harvesting from the iliac crest) versus no complications in the short implant (Fisher's exact test P = 0.013; difference in proportions = 0.38; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65). Both groups presented a significant peri-implant marginal bone loss at 1 year after loading (P < 0.0001); -1.05 (0.20) mm for short implants and -1.01 (0.16) mm for the augmented group, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (mean difference -0.04 mm; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.14; P = 0.59). All patients were fully satisfied with the treatment and would have it again.This pilot study suggests that short implants may be a suitable, cheaper and faster alternative to longer implants placed in bone augmented with autogenous bone for rehabilitating edentulous atrophic maxillae, however, these preliminary results need to be confirmed by larger trials with follow-ups of at least 5 years.
|
|
| 7. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented atrophic mandibles: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with a 5-year post-loading follow-up.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International journal of oral implantology (New Malden, London, England). - 2631-6439. ; 12:3, s. 267-280
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare the clinical outcome of fixed prostheses supported by 4- to 8-mm-long implants with prostheses supported by longer implants placed in vertically augmented atrophic mandibles after a follow-up of 5 years in function.The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE were searched up to 1st September 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 5 years in function comparing fixed prostheses supported by 4- to 8-mm-long implants with prostheses supported by longer implants placed in vertically augmented atrophic mandibles. Outcome measures were prosthesis failure, implant failures, augmentation procedure failures, complications, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the risk of bias and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. The statistical unit of the analysis was the prosthesis. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Four eligible RCTs that included originally 135 patients were included. Two RCTs had a parallel-group design and two a split-mouth design. Short implants were 5.0 to 6.6 mm long and were compared with longer implants placed in posterior mandibles augmented with interpositional blocks of bone substitutes. All trials were judged at unclear risk of bias. Twelve (14%) bone augmentation procedures failed to achieve the planned bone height to allow placement of implants with the planned length. Five years after loading, 28 patients (21%) had dropped out from the four RCTs. There were no differences for patients having prosthesis (RR = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.52 to 4.09; P = 0.47; I2 = 0%) or implant (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.31 to 3.21; P = 1.00; I2 = 0%) failures between the two interventions, but there were more patients experiencing complications (RR = 4.72; 95% CI: 2.43 to 9.17; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and peri-implant marginal bone loss (mean difference = 0.60 mm; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.83; P < 0.00001; I2 = 45%) at longer implants in augmented bone.Five years after loading, prosthetic and implant failures were similar between the two interventions, but complications and peri-implant marginal bone loss were higher and more severe at longer implants placed in vertically augmented mandibles. Larger trials and longer follow-ups up to 10 years after loading are needed to confirm or reject the present preliminary findings. However in the meantime short implants could be the preferable option.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Felice, Pietro, et al.
(författare)
-
Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International journal of oral implantology (New Malden, London, England). - 2631-6439. ; 12:1, s. 25-37
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To evaluate whether 5-mm short dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with anorganic bovine bone and placement of at least 10-mm long implants in posterior atrophic jaws.Fifteen patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles (5 to 7 mm bone height above the mandibular canal) and 15 patients with bilateral atrophic maxillae (4 to 6 mm bone height below the maxillary sinus), and bone thickness of at least 8 mm, were randomised according to a split-mouth design to receive one to three 5-mm short implants or at least 10-mm long implants in augmented bone. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional bone blocks and maxillary sinuses with particulated bone via a lateral window. Implants were placed after 4 months, submerged and loaded, after another 4 months, with provisional prostheses. Four months later, definitive provisionally cemented prostheses were delivered. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complication and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.In five augmented mandibles the planned 10-mm long implants could not be placed and shorter implants (7.0 and 8.5 mm) had to be used instead. Five years after loading, six patients, five treated in the mandible and one in the maxilla, dropped out. Three prostheses (one mandibular and two maxillary) failed in the short-implant group versus none in the long-implant group. In mandibles one long implant failed versus two short implants in one patient. In maxillae one long implant failed versus three short implants in two patients. There were no statistically significant differences in implant (n = 26; P = 1.00, difference = 3.85%, 95% CI: -12.95% to 20.64%) and prosthetic (n = 26; P = 0.250, difference = 11.54%, 95% CI: -0.74% to 23.82%) failures. Eleven patients had 16 complications at short implants (one patient accounted for six complications) and 12 patients had 14 complications at long implants. There were no statistically significant differences in complications (n = 28; P = 1.00, difference = -3.57%, 95% CI: -30.65% to 23.51%). Five years after loading, patients with mandibular implants lost on average 1.72 mm at short implants and 2.10 mm at long implants of peri-implant marginal bone. This difference was statistically significant (difference = 0.37 ± 0.43 mm; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.68 mm; P = 0.022). In maxillae, patients lost on average 1.31 mm at short implants and 1.79 mm at long implants. This difference was statistically significant (difference = 0.48 ± 0.43 mm; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.74 mm; P = 0.002).Five years after loading, 5-mm short implants achieved similar results to longer implants in augmented bone. The choice of short implants might be preferable to vertical bone augmentation, especially in mandibles, since the treatment is faster and cheaper.
|
|
| 10. |
- Felice, Pietro, et al.
(författare)
-
Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long × 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:2, s. 175-187
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To evaluate whether 6 mm long × 4 mm wide dental implants could be an alternative to implants of at least 10 mm long placed in bone augmented with bone substitutes in posterior atrophic jaws.A total of 20 patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles, and 20 patients with bilateral atrophic maxillae, having 5 mm to 7 mm of bone height below the maxillary sinus or 6 mm to 8 mm above the mandibular canal, had their side of the jaws randomly allocated according to a split-mouth design. They were allocated to receive one to three 6 mm long × 4 mm wide implants, or implants of at least 10 mm long in augmented bone by two different surgeons at different centres. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional equine bone blocks and resorbable barriers, and implants were placed 3 months later. Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window and implants were placed simultaneously. After 4 months, all implants were submerged and loaded with provisional prostheses. Four months later, definitive prostheses were delivered. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complication and radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level changes.Five patients (three treated in mandibles and two in maxillae) dropped out before the 3-year post-loading follow-up. Two short maxillary implants affected by peri-implantitis failed together with their prosthesis vs three mandibular prostheses that could not be placed on implants at least 10 mm long due to graft failures; one was associated with the loss of three implants because of infection. There were no statistically significant differences in implant (difference in proportions = 0.000; 95% CI: -0.140 to 0.140; P = 1.000) and prosthesis failures (difference in proportions = 0.057; 95% CI: -0.094 to 0.216; P = 0.625). In total, 18 complications occurred in 13 patients at augmented sites vs four complications in three patients with 6 mm long implants. Significantly more complications occurred at grafted sites in mandibles (difference in proportions = 0.353; 95% CI: 0.005 to 0.616; P = 0.031), but not in maxillae (difference in proportions = 0.222; 95% CI: -0.071 to 0.486; P = 0.219). In mandibles, patients with 6 mm long implants lost an average of 1.25 mm of peri-implant bone at 3 years vs 1.54 mm in patients with implants of at least 10 mm long. The difference was statistically significant (mean difference = 0.29 mm; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.51 mm; P = 0.010). In maxillas, patients with 6 mm-long implants lost an average of 1.28 mm of peri-implant bone at 3 years vs 1.50 mm in patients with implants of at least 10 mm long. The difference was statistically significant (mean difference = 0.22 mm; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.35 mm; P = 0.003).Results at 3 years after loading indicate that 6 mm long implants with a conventional diameter of 4 mm achieved similar, if not better, results than longer implants placed in augmented bone. Short implants might be a preferable choice to bone augmentation, especially in posterior mandibles, since the treatment is faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. However, data obtained 5 to 10 years after loading are necessary before making reliable recommendations.
|
|
