Search

Introduction: To compare the clinical outcomes of anterior single maxillary implants placed using conventional or guided implant surgery. Methods: In this retrospective clinical study 44 patients rehabilitated with a single anterior implant in the maxillary arch were included. Twenty‐four implants were inserted applying a guided surgery approach (GS), and 20 applying a conventional freehand approach (CS). Outcome measures were: implant survival rate and complications; mean bone level (MBL) evaluated at surgery (T0), after 6 weeks (6 W), and after 1 year (1Y), 2 years (2Y), 3 years (3Y), 4 years (4Y), and 5 years (5Y); patients' satisfaction evaluated through a questionnaire filled out before surgery (BS) and at 1 week, 6 W, 2Y and 5Y; Pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) evaluated at 1Y, 3Y and 5 Y. Significance of differences between groups were tested by Fisher's exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Results: During the 5‐year follow‐up there were no drop‐outs and no implant failed. No significant differences between groups were found in MBL. A significant difference between groups was found in VAS scores regarding speech at 2 years, aesthetics at 6 weeks, confidence at 1 week and 6 weeks, satisfaction at T0 and at 1 W, pain/comfort at 1 W and at 6 W; all VAS scores resulted significantly improved compared to baseline. No significant differences in WES were found, while significant differences in PES scores between CS and GS groups were found at 3 and 5 years (p value = 0.023 and 0.004 respectively) with better outcomes for GS. A significant difference over time was found in PES between 5‐year and one‐year values. Conclusions: Guided surgery and conventional surgery implants did not show any difference in MBL during the 5‐year observation period. Guided surgical procedure guarantee optimal esthetic outcome and seems able to guarantee better soft tissue result over time, even though more long‐term studies are necessary to confirm this data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare (1) the clinical outcome of the reconstruction of extremely atrophic edentulous maxillae with fresh frozen allogeneic bone ( FFB) (group A) and autogenous bone ( AB) (group B) iliac blocks; and (2) the peri-implant bone resorption and the survival rate of implants in the two groups. Materials and Methods In a 1-year period, eight patients were treated with FFB and seven with AB iliac grafts. Five to seven months afterward, 108 implants were inserted (59 in group A and 49 in group B). Four to five months afterward, patients were rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Results Prior to implant placement, graft exposure occurred in two patients in group A and in one patient in group B. The mean graft resorption prior to implant placement was 0.78 mm and 0.54 mm in group A and B, respectively. After implant placement, bone graft exposures with partial loss of the graft occurred in six out of eight patients in group A and in none of the group B patients. The survival rate of implants was 90.1% and 100% in group A and B, respectively. The mean values of peri-implant bone resorption at the end of the follow-up period were 1.64 mm and 0.92 mm in group A and B, respectively. Conclusion Results of this study seem to demonstrate that FFB does not represent a reliable alternative to AB blocks because of the higher rate of bone exposure and partial loss of the grafts, the lower implant survival, and the higher peri-implant bone resorption in FFB patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background: The use of endosseous dental implants has become common practice for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients, and a two-implant overdenture has been recommended as the standard of care. The use of small-diameter implants may extend treatment options and reduce the necessity for bone augmentation. However, the mechanical strength of titanium is limited, so titanium alloys with greater tensile and fatigue strength may be preferable. Purpose: This randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter study investigated in a split-mouth model whether small-diameter implants made from Titanium-13Zirconium alloy (TiZr, Roxolid™) perform at least as well as Titanium Grade IV implants. Methods and Materials: Patients with an edentulous mandible received one TiZr and one Ti Grade IV small-diameter bone level implant (3.3 mm, SLActive®) in the interforaminal region. The site distribution was randomized and double-blinded. Outcome measures included change in radiological peri-implant bone level from surgery to 12 months post-insertion (primary), implant survival, success, soft tissue conditions, and safety (secondary). Results: Of 91 treated patients, 87 were available for the 12-month follow-up. Peri-implant bone level change (−0.3 ± 0.5 mm vs −0.3 ± 0.6 mm), plaque, and sulcus bleeding indices were not significantly different between TiZr and Ti Grade IV implants. Implant survival rates were 98.9 percent and 97.8 percent, success rates were 96.6 percent and 94.4 percent, respectively. Nineteen minor and no serious adverse events were related to the study devices. Conclusion: This study confirms that TiZr small-diameter bone level implants provide at least the same outcomes after 12 months as Ti Grade IV bone level implants. The improved mechanical properties of TiZr implants may extend implant therapy to more challenging clinical situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]