| 1. |
- Cannizzaro, Gioacchino, et al.
(författare)
-
Immediate loading of three (fixed-on-3) vs four (fixed-on-4) implants supporting cross-arch fixed prostheses: 1-year results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:3, s. 323-333
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To evaluate the outcome of three (fixed-on-3 = Fo3) vs four (fixed-on-4 = Fo4) implants immediately restored with metal-resin screw-retained cross-arch prostheses in fully edentulous jaws.Forty-eight edentulous or to be rendered edentulous patients were randomised in six centres (eight patients per centre) to the Fo3 group (24 patients: 12 maxillae and 12 mandibles) and to the Fo4 group (24 patients: 12 maxillae and 12 mandibles) according to a parallel group design. To be immediately loaded, implants had to be inserted with a minimum torque of 40 Ncm. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes evaluated up to 1 year post-loading.One maxillary prosthesis per group was delayed loaded because implants could not be placed with a torque of at least 40 Ncm. Ten patients in the Fo3 group and four in the Fo4 group had implants placed flapless. One year after loading no drop out occurred. One patient of the Fo3 group lost three implants vs three patients of the Fo4 group who lost four implants, the difference being no statistically significant (risk difference = -0.08; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.10; Fisher's exact test P = 0.609). One mandibular Fo3 and one maxillary Fo4 prosthesis failed. Six Fo3 patients were affected by complications vs three Fo4 patients (risk difference = 0.12; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.34; Fisher's exact test; P = 0.461). Both groups lost marginal bone in a statistically significant way (0.22 ± 0.20 mm for Fo3 patients and 0.40 ± 0.21 mm for Fo4 patients), with Fo3 group showing less marginal peri-implant bone loss than Fo4 group (estimate of the difference = -0.18 (standard error: 0.06) mm; 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.06; P = 0.005). There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the six operators.These preliminary results suggest that immediately loaded cross-arch prostheses of both jaws can be supported by only three dental implants at least up to 1 year post-loading, though longer follow-ups are definitively needed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Endodontic retreatment versus dental implants of teeth with an uncertain endodontic prognosis: 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:4, s. 423-438
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To ascertain whether in the presence of a previously endodontically treated tooth with periapical pathology and/or symptoms and an uncertain prognosis, it is better to endodontically retreat it or to replace the tooth with a single-implant-supported crown.Twenty patients requiring the treatment of a previously endodontically treated tooth, with periapical pathology and/or symptoms of endodontic origin and an uncertain prognosis, as judged by the recruiting investigator, were randomly allocated to endodontic retreatment (Endo group, 10 patients) or tooth extraction and replacement with an implant-supported crown (Implant group, 10 patients) according to a parallel-group design at a single centre. Patients were followed to 3 years after completion of the treatment. Outcome measures were: failure of the procedure, complications, marginal bone level changes at both teeth and implants, endodontic radiographic success (teeth only), number of patients' visits and days to complete the treatment, patients' chair time, costs, aesthetics assessed using the pink aesthetic score (PES) for the soft tissues and the white aesthetic score (WES) for the tooth/crown recorded by independent assessors.No patient dropped out. One endodontically retreated tooth fractured and another had a crown loosening. There were no statistically significant differences for treatment failure or complications (difference in proportions = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.29; P (Fisher exact test) = 1.000). The mean marginal bone levels at endodontic retreatment/implant insertion were 2.10 ± 0.66 mm for the Endo group and 0.05 ± 0.15 mm for the Implant group. Three years after completion of the treatment, teeth lost on average 0.23 ± 0.82 mm and implants 0.62 ± 0.68 mm, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -0.39 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.12 to 0.33; P (t test) = 0.267). Three years after completion of the endodontic retreatment, of the four teeth that originally had a periapical radiolucency, one was lost, two showed complete healing, and one showed radiographic improvement. There were no statistically significant differences for the number of patients' visits (Endo = 6.67 ± 0.71; Implant = 6.10 ± 0.74; mean difference = 0.57; 95% CI: -0.14 to 1.27; P (t test) = 0.106). It took significantly more days to complete the implant rehabilitation (Endo = 61 ± 12.97; Implant = 191.40 ± 75.04; mean difference = -130.40; 95% CI: -184.45 to -76.35; P (t test) < 0.001) but less patients' chair time (Endo = 629.44 ± 43.62 min; Implant = 326 ± 196.99 min; mean difference = 303.44; 95% CI: 160.87 to 446.02; P (t test) = 0.001). Implant treatment was significantly more expensive (Endo = €1,588.89 ± 300.81; Implant = €2,095 ± 158.90; mean difference = €-506.11; 95% CI: -735.41 to -276.82; P (t test) < 0.001). Three years after treatment completion, mean PES were 11.11 ± 1.97 and 6.50 ± 2.46 and mean WES were 7.78 ± 1.30 and 6.80 ± 2.39 in the Endo group and Implant group, respectively. Soft tissues aesthetics (PES) were significantly better at endodontically retreated teeth (mean difference 4.61; 95% CI: 2.44 to 6.78; P (t test) < 0.001) whereas no significant differences were observed for tooth aesthetics (WES) (mean difference 0.98; 95% CI: -0.89 to 2.85; P (t test) = 0.281) between treatments.The present preliminary results suggest that both endodontic retreatment and replacement of previously endodontically treated teeth with persisting pathology and a dubious endodontic prognosis provided similar short-term success rates. Aesthetics of the soft tissues and time needed to complete treatment were in favour of endodontic retreatment whereas implant rehabilitation required half of the chair time than endodontic retreatment, but was significantly more expensive. Much larger patient populations and longer follow-ups are needed to fully answer this question; however, in this scenario the less invasive endodontic retreatment could be the first therapeutic option to be considered.
|
|
| 3. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Endodontic retreatment vs dental implants of teeth with an uncertain endodontic prognosis: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:3, s. 293-308
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To ascertain whether in the presence of a previously endodontically treated tooth with a periapical pathology and/or symptoms and an uncertain prognosis, it is better to endodontically retreat it or to replace the tooth with a single implant-supported crown.Forty patients requiring the treatment of a previously endodontically treated tooth, with a periapical pathology and/or symptoms of endodontic origin and an uncertain prognosis, as judged by the recruiting investigators, were randomly allocated to endodontic retreatment (endo group; 20 patients) or tooth extraction and replacement with an implant-supported crown (implant group; 20 patients) according to a parallel group design at two different centres. Patients were followed to 1 year after completion of the treatment. Outcome measures were: failure of the procedure, complications, marginal bone level changes at both teeth and implants, endodontic radiographic success (teeth only), number of patients' visits and days to complete the treatment, patients' chair time, costs, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES) for the soft tissues and the white esthetic score (WES) for the tooth/crown recorded by independent assessors.No patient dropped out and no complications occurred during the entire follow-up; however, one endodontically retreated tooth (5%) and one implant (5%) fractured, the difference for treatment failures being not statistically significant (difference in proportions = 0; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.14; P Fisher's exact test) = 1.000). The mean marginal bone levels at endo retreatment/implant insertion were 2.34 ± 0.88 mm for the endo and 0.23 ± 0.35 mm for the implant group, which was statistically significantly different (mean difference = 2.11 mm; 95% CI: 1.68 to 2.55; P (t-test) < 0.001). One year after completion of the treatment, teeth lost on average 0.32 ± 0.53 mm and implants 0.48 ± 0.72, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -0.16 mm; 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.27; P (t-test) = 0.457). One year after completion of the endodontic retreatment, of the 13 teeth that originally had a periapical radiolucency, one was lost, six showed complete healing; four a radiographic improvement; and two showed no changes/worsening. Two of the teeth originally without a lesion developed a lesion. There were no statistically significant differences for the number of patients' visits (endo = 5.2 ± 1.8; implant = 5.5 ± 1.1; mean difference = -0.03 95% CI: -1.24 to 0.64; P (t-test) = 0.522). It took significantly more days to complete the implant rehabilitation (endo = 48.9 ± 19.5; implant = 158.5 ± 67.2; mean difference = -109.60; 95% CI: -141.26 to -77.94; P (t-test) < 0.001), but less patients' chair time (endo = 405.5 ± 230.3 min; implant = 260.0 ± 154.6 min; mean difference = 45.50; 95% CI: 19.35 to 271.65; P (t-test) = 0.025). Implant treatment was significantly more expensive (endo = 1195 ± 503.7 €; implant = 1907.5 ± 232.4 €; mean difference = -712.50; 95% CI: -963.59 to -461.41; P (t-test) < 0.001). One year after treatment completion, the mean PES was 10.92 ± 1.93 and 7.07 ± 2.87 and the mean WES was 7.67 ± 1.83 and 7.60 ± 2.32 in the endo group and implant group, respectively. Soft tissues aesthetics (PES) was significantly better at endodontically retreated teeth (mean difference 3.85; 95% CI 1.94 to 5.76; P (t-test) < 0.001) whereas no significant differences were observed for tooth aesthetics (WES) (mean difference 0.07; 95% CI -1.62 to 1.76; P (t-test) = 0.936) between treatments.The preliminary results suggest that both endodontic retreatment and replacement of previously endodontically treated teeth with persisting pathology and a dubious endodontic prognosis provided similar short-term success rates. Aesthetics of the soft tissues and time needed to complete treatment were in favour of endodontic retreatment, whereas implant rehabilitation required half of the chair time than endodontic retreatment, but was significantly more expensive. Although much larger patient populations and longer follow-ups are needed to fully answer this question, in this scenario the less invasive endodontic retreatment could be the first therapeutic option to be considered.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Xhanari, Erta, et al.
(författare)
-
MACHINED VERSUS CAST ABUTMENTS FOR SINGLE DENTAL IMPLANTS: A 3-YEAR WITHIN-PATIENT MULTICENTRE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015 .- 2785-3039. ; 5:1, s. 5-16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE. To compare clinical outcomes of machined titanium abutments (machined group) versus cast cobalt-chrome abutments (cast group). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty-one partially edentulous subjects received two single non-adjacent implant-supported crowns each at three centres. Three and a half months after implant placement, implants were randomized at impression taking to receive one machined and one cast abutment according to a within-patient study design. Four patients dropped out and one patient lost one implant before randomization, so only 26 patients had their implants randomized. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, and radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Patients were followed up for 3 years after loading. RESULTS. After randomization, three patients dropped out. One implant failed and two crowns on cast abutments were lost, but differences in implant and prosthesis failures were not statistically different (McNemar test P = 1.000; difference in proportions = 0.04 and P = 0.500; difference in proportions = 0.08, respectively). Two minor complications occurred in the cast group versus one in the machined group, the difference not being statistically different (McNemar test P = 1.000; difference in proportions = 0.04; 95% CI 0.18 to 22.06). Both groups presented statistically significant peri-implant marginal bone loss from implant placement to 3 years after loading, respectively-0.72 ± 0.90 mm (P = 0.001) for machined and-0.60 ± 0.61 mm (P <0.001) for cast abutments, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (mean difference-0.12 mm; 95% CI-0.57 to 0.34; P = 0.624). Both groups gradually lost marginal peri-implant bone from loading (baseline) to 3 years after loading, but this was not statistically significant; machined lost-0.05 ± 0.12 mm while cast lost-0.14 ± 0.11 mm, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.06 mm; 95% CI-0.24 to 0.35; P = 0.708). CONCLUSIONS. The present clinical data suggest that implant prognosis up to 3 years after loading is not affected by the choice of machined or cast abutments.
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
- Alqutaibi, A. Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Single vs two implant-retained overdentures for edentulous mandibles: A systematic review
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:3, s. 243-261
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To compare prosthesis and implant failure, patient satisfaction, prosthetic complications and peri-implant marginal bone loss of mandibular overdentures (IOD) supported by a single or two implants. Materials and methods: Manual and electronic database (PubMed and Cochrane) searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials, without language restriction, comparing single vs two implant supported mandibular overdentures. Two investigators extracted data independently. The Cochrane tool was used for assessing the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses were performed for the included RCTs. Results: Six publications corresponding to four RCTs were identified. Three RCTs (corresponding to five publications) were included and one trial was excluded. Follow-ups in function were 1, 3 and 5 years after loading. All included studies were considered to be at a high risk of bias. The pooled result revealed more prosthesis failures at overdentures supported by two implants at 1 year (three trials) (P = 0.02; Risk Difference: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.22, -0.02), however, there were non-significant differences at 3 years (two trials) (P = 0.22; Risk Difference: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.83, 0.19) and at 5 years (one trial) (P = 0.95; Risk Difference: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.22, 0.24). Regarding implant failures, there were more implant losses in overdentures supported by two implants at 1 year (three trials) (P = 0.02; Risk Difference: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.22, -0.02) and at 5 years (one trial) (P = 0.95; Risk Difference: -0.15, 95% CI: -0.28, -0.02), however, there were non-significant difference at 3 years (two trials) (P = 0.2; Risk Difference: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.84, 0.18). After 5 years in function, meta-analyses revealed that there were nonsignificant differences regarding overall prosthetic complications when mandibular overdentures supported by a single implant were compared with overdentures supported by two implants (P = 0.43; RD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.15). Conclusion: Mandibular overdentures retained by a single implant have comparable results to those retained by two implants. However, this should be interpreted with caution as all the included studies were considered at a high risk of bias. Conflict of interest statement: None declared. © Quintessenz.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
