| 1. |
- Cannizzaro, Gioacchino, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:3, s. 323-333
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Endodontic retreatment versus dental implants of teeth with an uncertain endodontic prognosis: 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial.
- 2018
-
In: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:4, s. 423-438
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Endodontic retreatment vs dental implants of teeth with an uncertain endodontic prognosis: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial.
- 2017
-
In: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:3, s. 293-308
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
MACHINED VERSUS CAST ABUTMENTS FOR SINGLE DENTAL IMPLANTS: A 3-YEAR WITHIN-PATIENT MULTICENTRE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
- 2023
-
In: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015 .- 2785-3039. ; 5:1, s. 5-16
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Implant survival and complications. The Third EAO consensus conference 2012.
- 2012
-
In: Clinical oral implants research. - : Wiley. - 1600-0501 .- 0905-7161. ; 23 Suppl 6, s. 63-5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
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
-
In: IMPLANTOLOGIE. - 0943-9692. ; 18:1, s. 61-76
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
The influence of platelet-rich plasma on the healing of extraction sockets: an explorative randomised clinical trial
- 2010
-
In: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 3:2, s. 121-134
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Single vs two implant-retained overdentures for edentulous mandibles: A systematic review
- 2017
-
In: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:3, s. 243-261
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Single preoperative dose of prophylactic amoxicillin versus a 2-day postoperative course in dental implant surgery: A two-centre randomised controlled trial
- 2015
-
In: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:2, s. 143-149
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 11. |
- Atieh, M. A., et al.
(author)
-
ALVEOLAR RIDGE PRESERVATION: A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
- 2021
-
In: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015. ; 3:3, s. 5-36
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 12. |
- Atieh, Momen A, et al.
(author)
-
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.
- 2015
-
In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. - 1469-493X. ; :5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 13. |
- Atieh, Momen A., et al.
(author)
-
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development
- 2021
-
In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. - 1465-1858. ; 2021
-
Review (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Background: 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. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Objectives: 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. Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched. Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP 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. Data collection and analysis: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated 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 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Main results: We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons.
No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane. Authors' 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 lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no 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.
|
|
| 14. |
- Azaripour, A., et al.
(author)
-
SOFT TISSUE SUBSTITUTES AT IMMEDIATE POST-EXTRACTIVE IMPLANTS TO REDUCE TISSUE SHRINKAGE – 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
- 2021
-
In: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015. ; 3:3, s. 47-57
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
- Barausse, Carlo, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: Clinical Trials in Dentistry. - 2784-9015 .- 2785-3039. ; 1, s. 25-36
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 18. |
- Bolle, C., et al.
(author)
-
4 mm long vs longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial
- 2018
-
In: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 11:1, s. 31-47
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate whether 4.0 mm short dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with xenographs in the maxilla and placement of at least 10.0 mm long implants in posterior atrophic jaws. Materials and methods: A group of 40 patients with atrophic posterior (premolar and molar areas) mandibles with 5.0 mm to 6.0 mm bone height above the mandibular canal and 40 patients with atrophic maxillas having 4.0 mm to 5.0 mm below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive between one and three 4.0 mm long implants or one to three implants of at least 10.0 mm long in augmented bone, at two centres. All implants had a diameter of 4.0 mm or 4.5 mm. Mandibles were vertically augmented with inter-positional equine bone blocks and resorbable barriers. Implants were placed 4 months after the inter-positional grafting. Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window covered with resorbable barriers, and implants were placed simultaneously. Implants were not submerged and were loaded after 4 months with provisional screw-retained reinforced acrylic restorations replaced after another 4 months by definitive screw-retained metal-composite prostheses. Patients were followed up to 1 year post-loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complication, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Results: Three patients dropped out; one from the maxillary augmented group, one from the mandibular augmented group, and one from the maxillary short implant group. In six augmented mandibles (30%) it was not possible to place implants of at least 10.0 mm, so shorter implants were placed instead. In mandibles, one implant from the augmented group failed vs two 4.0 mm implants in two patients from the short implant group. In maxillae, three short implants failed in two patients vs seven long implants in four patients (two long implants and one short implant dropped into the maxillary sinus). Two prostheses on short implants (one mandibular and one maxillary) were placed at a later stage because of implant failures, vs six prostheses (one mandibular and five maxillary) at augmented sites (one mandibular prosthesis not delivered, three maxillary prostheses delivered with delays, one not delivered, and one failed) at augmented sites. In particular, three patients in the augmented group (one mandible and two maxillae) were not wearing a prosthesis. There were no statistically significant differences in implant failures (P (chi-square test) = 0.693; difference in proportion = 0.03; CI 95% -0.11 to 0.17) or prostheses failures (P (chi-square test) = 0.126; difference in proportion = 0.10; CI 95% -0.03 to 0.24). At mandibular sites, nine augmented patients were affected by complications vs two patients treated with short implants (P (chi-square test) = 0.01; difference in proportion = 0.37; CI 95% 0.11 to 0.63), the difference being statistically significant. No significant differences were found for maxillae: nine sinus-lifted patients vs four short implant patients were affected by complications (P (chi-square test) = 0.091; difference in proportion = 0.25; CI 95% -0.03 to 0.53). At 1-year post-loading, average peri-implant bone loss was 0.51 mm at 4 mm long mandibular implants, 0.77 mm at 10 mm or longer mandibular implants, 0.63 mm at short maxillary implants and 0.72 mm at long maxillary implants. The difference was statistically significant in mandibles (mean difference -0.26 mm, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, P (ANCOVA) < 0.001), but not in maxillae (mean difference -0.09 mm, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.05, P (ANCOVA) = 0.196). Conclusions: One year after loading 4.0 mm long implants achieved similar results, if not better, than longer implants in augmented jaws, but were affected by fewer complications. Short implants might be a preferable choice over bone augmentation, especially in mandibles, since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper, and associated with less morbidity. However, 5 to 10 years post-loading data are necessary before making reliable recommendations. © 2002-2018 Quintessence Publishing Group.
|
|
| 19. |
- Bressan, Eriberto, et al.
(author)
-
The influence of repeated abutment changes on peri-implant tissue stability: 3-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
- 2017
-
In: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:4, s. 373-390
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To evaluate the influence of at least three abutment disconnections in conventional loaded implants against placement of a definitive abutment in immediately non-occlusal loaded implants on hard and soft tissue changes. A secondary aim was to evaluate whether the presence of less than 2 mm of keratinised mucosa is associated with increased peri-implant marginal bone loss and soft tissue recessions.Eighty patients requiring one single crown or one fixed partial prosthesis supported by a maximum of three implants were randomised, after implants were placed with more than 35 Ncm, according to a parallel group design to receive definitive abutments that were loaded immediately (definitive abutment or immediate loading group) or transmucosal abutments, which were delayed loaded after 3 months and removed at least three times: 1. At impression taking (3 months after implant placement); 2. When checking the zirconium core on titanium abutments at single crowns or the fitting the metal structure at prostheses supported by multiple implants; 3. At delivery of the definitive prostheses (repeated disconnection or conventional loading group). Patients were treated at four centres and each patient contributed to the study, with only one prosthesis followed for 3 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications, pink aesthetic score (PES), buccal recessions, patient satisfaction, peri-implant marginal bone level changes and height of the keratinised mucosa.Forty patients were randomly allocated to each group according to a parallel group design. Six patients from the definitive abutment group dropped out or died, and one left from the repeated disconnection group. One implant, from the repeated disconnection group, fractured (difference = 3%; CI 95%: -2%, 8%; P = 1). Four provisional crowns and one definitive single crown had to be remade because of poor fitting, and one definitive crown and one definitive prosthesis because of ceramic and implant fracture, respectively, in the repeated disconnection group vs one provisional prosthesis from the definitive abutment group due to frequent debondings (difference = 15%; CI 95%: 2%, 28%; P = 0.060). Five patients from the definitive abutment group and four patients from the repeated disconnection group were affected by complications (difference = 4%; CI 95%: -11%, 20%; P = 0.725). PES scores assessed at 3 years post-loading were 11.7 (standard deviation = 1.8) mm for the definitive abutment group and 11.3 (1.5) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (difference = 0.4; CI 95%: -0.4, 1.2; P = 0.315). However, there was a difference of 0.26 out of a maximum score of 2 in favour of the definitive abutment group for soft tissue contour only. Buccal recessions at 3 years post-loading amounted to -0.1 (0.8) mm for the definitive abutment group and -0.1 (1.2) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (it was actually a soft tissue gain; difference = 0.01 mm CI 95%: -0.48, 0.50; P = 0.965). All patients declared being very satisfied or satisfied with the function and aesthetics of the prostheses and said they would undergo the same procedure again, with the exception of one patient from the repeated disconnection group who was uncertain regarding function. Mean peri-implant marginal bone loss 3 years after loading was 0.07 (0.18) mm for the definitive abutment group and 0.50 (0.93) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (difference = 0.43 mm; CI 95%: 0.13, 0.74; P = 0.007). The height of keratinised mucosa at 3 years post-loading was 2.8 (1.3) mm for the definitive abutment group and 2.8 (1.6) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (difference = 0.03; CI 95%: -0.67, 0.73; P = .926). Up to 3 years after initial loading there were no statistically significant differences between the two procedures, with the exception of 0.4 mm more marginal bone loss at implants subjected to three abutment disconnections. There were no significantly increased marginal bone loss (difference = 0.1 mm, CI 95%: -0.3, 0.5, P = 0.590) or buccal recessions (difference = 0.1 mm, CI 95%: -0.4, 0.7, P = 0.674) at implants with less than 2 mm of keratinised mucosa at loading.Three-year post-loading data showed that repeated abutment disconnections significantly increased bone loss of 0.43 mm, but this difference may not be considered clinically relevant; therefore clinicians can use the procedure they find more convenient for each specific patient. Immediately non-occlusally loaded dental implants are a viable alternative to conventional loading and no increased bone loss or buccal recessions were noticed at implants with less than 2 mm of keratinised mucosa. Conflict of interest statement: This trial was partially funded by Dentsply Sirona Implants, the manufacturer of the implants and other products evaluated in this investigation. However, data belonged to the authors and by no means did the manufacturer interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of the results, with the exception of rejecting a proposal to change the protocol, after the trial was started, allowing the use of indexed abutments.
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
- Cannizzaro, G., et al.
(author)
-
Early implant loading in the atrophic posterior maxilla: 1-stage lateral versus crestal sinus lift and 8mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A 5-year randomised controlled trial
- 2013
-
In: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406 .- 1756-2414. ; 6:1, s. 13-25
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of long implants (10-16 mm) inserted in maxillary sinuses augmented according to a lateral approach versus short (8 mm) implants placed in crestally augmented sinuses, early loaded after 45 days. Materials and methods: Forty partially or fully edentulous patients having 3 to 6mm of residual crestal height and at least 4mm in thickness below the maxillary sinuses were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive either one to three 10 to 16 mm-long hydroxyapatite-coated implants (20 patients) after lateral sinus lifting with 50% anorganic bovine (Bio-Oss) and 50% autogenous bone, or 8mm implants (20 patients) after crestal sinus lifting with autogenous bone. Implants were submerged and left healing for 45 days before loading the implants. Within 1 week after abutment connection, implants were loaded with screw-retained full acrylic provisional prostheses. Definitive metal-ceramic prostheses were provisionally cemented 45 days after abutment connection. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, and radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level changes. In addition, the stability of individual implants was assessed with Osstell and Periotest at abutment connection (baseline), and at 1 and 5 years after loading by blinded outcome assessors. All patients were followed up to 5 years after loading. Results: One patient dropped out (death) from the longer implant group. One implant failed in the short implant group versus 5 implants in 3 patients of the longer implant group. The difference was not statistically significant. Four complications occurred in 4 patients of the short implant group versus 8 complications in 7 patients of the long implant group, the difference being not statistically significantly different. However, the 2 major postoperative complications occurred in the longer implant group: 1 abscess, and 1 sinusitis that led to the complete failure of the treatment in 2 patients (4 implants lost). A total of 0.72 mm of peri-implant marginal bone was lost after 5 years at long implants and 0.41 mm at short implants, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.028). Osstell values increased and Periotest decreased over time and there were no differences between groups at any time points. Conclusions: In atrophic maxillary sinuses with a residual bone height of 3 to 6mm, 8 mm short implants placed in a simultaneously crestally lifted sinus might be a preferable choice than a 1-stage lateral sinus lift for placing longer implants since they appear to be associated with less morbidity. If these implants are placed with an insertion torque >35 Ncm and are joined together under the same prosthesis, they can be early loaded at 6 weeks.
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
- Cannizzaro, Gioacchino, et al.
(author)
-
Immediate loading of 2 (all-on-2) flapless-placed mandibular implants supporting cross-arch fixed prostheses: interim data from a 1-year follow-up prospective single cohort study.
- 2012
-
In: European journal of oral implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 5:1, s. 49-58
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To evaluate the clinical outcome of 2 implants placed flapless in fully edentulous mandibles and immediately restored with a metal-resin screw-retained cross-arch prosthesis 1 year after loading.Eighty consecutive patients were recruited. To be immediately loaded, implants had to be inserted with a minimum torque of 80 Ncm. Outcome measures, evaluated by two independent assessors, were prosthesis and implant failures, complications, marginal bone level changes, implant stability quotient (ISQ) values and patient satisfaction.Flaps were raised in 7 patients. Twelve implants in 7 patients did not reach the planned insertion torque. Four implants in 3 patients were immediately replaced by larger diameter implants and achieved the desired torque, whereas the remaining implants were immediately loaded anyway. Two implants failed early in 2 patients, but were successfully replaced and their prostheses remade. One month after loading, 72 (90%) patients declared to be completely satisfied with the therapy, 7 (9%) partially satisfied and 1 (1%) unsatisfied. One year after loading, all prostheses were in function, though one patient did not attend the 1-year control. Eight (10%) complications occurred, all successfully treated. After 1 year, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.3 mm and mean ISQ values decreased from 75.4 to 72.4.These short-term results at 1 year after loading suggest that immediately loaded mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses can be supported by only 2 dental implants. Longer follow-ups (around 10 years) are needed to know the prognosis of this treatment modality.
|
|
