Search

Aim: To study the long-term outcome of implant survival rate, soft and hard tissue conditions and prosthetic status in a group of individuals treated with either Astra Tech TiOblast or Brånemark turned implants supporting a full-arch bridge., Material and Methods: Edentulous patients treated with either Astra Tech TiOblast surface or Brånemark turned implants were recalled for examination after 12-15 years. Out of initially 66 patients 46 were available for examination. Intra-oral radiographs were taken for bone level assessments. Clinical prosthetic conditions, number of surviving implants, implant stability, plaque scores, probing pocket depths, bleeding and pus after probing were recorded. Analyses of bone level changes during the total observation period were performed., Results: Three patients in the Astra Tech group lost totally eight implants and five patients in the Brånemark group lost 10 implants during the total observation period. No statistically significant difference in implant loss or bone level change was found. Sixteen per cent of Astra Tech and 29% of Brånemark patients showed at least one implant with ≥2 mm bone loss after the first year in function. The corresponding prevalence on implant level was 6% and 5% respectively. No significant differences were found between the other examined variables. Two patients showed prosthetic complications of the supra construction in need of repair. Seven bridges had minor ceramic chippings., Conclusion: Treatment with Astra Tech TiOblast implants and Brånemark turned implants supporting full-arch bridges showed generally good clinical results with low numbers of implants with marginal bone loss indicative of peri-implantitis. No significant differences were found between the implant systems after 12-15 years in function., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Diagnostics imaging is an essential component of patient selection and treatment planning in oral rehabilitation by means of osseointegrated implants. In 2002, the EAO produced and published guidelines on the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. Since that time, there have been significant developments in both the application of cone beam computed tomography as well as in the range of surgical and prosthetic applications that can potentially benefit from its use. However, medical exposure to ionizing radiation must always be justified and result in a net benefit to the patient. The as low a dose as is reasonably achievable principle must also be applied taking into account any alternative techniques that might achieve the same objectives. This paper reports on current EAO recommendations arising from a consensus meeting held at the Medical University of Warsaw (2011) to update these guidelines. Radiological considerations are detailed, including justification and optimization, with a special emphasis on the obligations that arise for those who prescribe or undertake such investigations. The paper pays special attention to clinical indications and radiographic diagnostic considerations as well as to future developments and trends., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: Fixture placement in the tuber area is one way to overcome the problem of insufficient bone volume for routine implant surgery in the posterior maxilla due to severe resorption of jawbone and an extensive enlargement of the maxillary sinus. However, little is known about the long-term results., Purpose: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the survival rate and marginal bone conditions at fixtures placed in the tuber region of the maxilla., Material and Methods: Twenty-one patients previously treated with at least one implant in the tuber region of the maxilla were included in this retrospective analysis. A total of 23 standard Brånemark System fixtures with a turned surface had been surgically placed in the tuber regions and 71 additional implants in adjacent areas to support fixed dental bridges. All implants were allowed to heal for 6-8 months before abutment connection and following prosthetic treatment. The patients were radiographed after 1-12 years for evaluation of marginal bone levels. In addition, the relation between the apex of the fixture in the tuberosity area and the posterior border of the maxilla was measured., Results: Twenty of the 21 patients representing 22 tuber and 64 additional implants were radiographically evaluated. No implants in the tuber areas were lost during the follow-up whereas two fixtures in the anterior region had to be removed, one before loading and the other after 4 years of loading not interfering with the prosthesis stability. The mean marginal bone level at tuber implants was situated on average 1.6 mm (SD 1.1, n=22) from the abutment-fixture junction, whilst the other implants showed an average bone level of 1.9 mm (SD 0.8, n=64). The results were similar when comparing partially and totally edentulous patients., Conclusion: The present retrospective study shows good clinical outcome with standard Brånemark fixtures placed in the tuber region of the posterior maxilla using a two-stage procedure. In appropriate cases where bone of adequate volume and density is available, our data indicate that the technique can be used as an alternative to more extensive surgery and especially to the sinus lift procedure. However, prospective comparative studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy of the described technique for this purpose.

This paper describes the 5-year results of a comparative study between Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants. The aim was to compare the systems primarily with regard to bone level changes, and also with regard to other variables of interest. Sixty-six patients with edentulous jaws were included in the study. Randomisation schedules were used to allocate the patients to the two implant systems. 184 Astra Tech implants with a titanium-blasted surface and 187 Brånemark implants with a turned surface were used. The implants were inserted with a two-stage technique and the insertion followed the routines for the respective implant system. All patients were provided with full-arch fixed bridges. All patients were followed up with clinical and radiographic examinations from fixture insertion to the 5-year follow-up. The total mean bone level change in the upper jaw between fixture insertion and the 5-year examination was -1.74+/-0.45 mm at the Astra implants and -1.98+/-0.21 at the Brånemark implants. The corresponding values for the lower jaw were -1.06+/-0.19 for Astra and -1.38+/-0.17 for Brånemark. The major postoperative changes of the marginal bone level took place between fixture insertion and baseline. During this period, there was also a different pattern of bone remodelling between the implant systems. Between baseline (prosthesis connection) and the 5-year examination, the marginal bone level changes were small, with no difference between the implant systems. The implant stability was examined with the supraconstructions removed. At the 5-year examination, the survival rate for Astra Tech implants was 98.4% and for the Brånemark implants it was 94.6%. The difference was not statistically significant.

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse bone level alterations over a 5-year period at implants in the maxillary posterior segments in patients with varying experience of periodontal bone loss in the natural dentition before implant placement., Materials and Methods: 97 partially dentate patients with a total of 346 Brånemark oral implants in the maxillary posterior segments were included. By assessing the degree of radiographic marginal bone loss in the remaining natural dentition at time of the implant therapy, an age-related bone loss score (ArB-score) was calculated for description of the patient's experience of periodontal destruction. The two end quartiles of the distribution of the subjects with regard to the ArB-score were defined as Non-Perio subjects and Perio subjects, respectively. The primary outcome variables were implant losses (implant failures) and radiographic peri-implant bone loss over the 5-year observation period., Results: A total of 18 implants were lost during the 5 years, resulting in an overall failure rate of 5.2%. The corresponding failure rate was 3.3% for the Non-Perio and 8.0% for the Perio patients. The peri-implant bone loss from the time of abutment connection to 5 years averaged 1.8 mm (SD 0.7). Of the patients, 34% showed a mean bone loss of > 2 mm and 39% of all implants had experienced a bone loss of 2 mm at the 5-year examination. The Non-Perio and Perio patients showed a mean bone loss of 1.7 mm (0.8) and 2.2 mm (0.8), respectively. Multiple regression analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between the ArB-score and the peri-implant bone level change from abutment connection to 5 years (P < 0.05). In all, 64% of Perio patients had a mean peri-implant bone loss of > 2 mm from the time of abutment connection, compared to 24% for the Non-Perio patients (P < 0.01). The percentage of implants showing 2 mm of bone loss between abutment connection and 5 years was 62% and 44% in the Perio and Non-Perio groups, respectively (P = 0.055)., Conclusion: The results indicate that longitudinal bone loss around implants is correlated to previous experience of loss of periodontal bone support and that periodontitis susceptible subjects may show an increased implant failure rate.

The aim of this study was to longitudinally follow up osseointegrated titanium implants in partially dentate patients by clinical, radiographic and microbiological parameters in order to evaluate possible changes in the peri-implant health over time. Fifteen individuals treated with titanium implants, ad modum Brånemark, and followed for ten years were included in the study. Before implant placement ten years previously, the individuals had been treated for advanced periodontal disease and thereafter been included in a maintenance care program. The survival rate of the implants after ten years was 94.7%. The bone loss was 1.7 mm when using the abutment-fixture junction as a reference point. Of the individuals, 50% were positive for plaque at the implants. Bleeding on sulcus probing was present at 61% of the implant surfaces. Ten years previously, the individuals had been carriers of putative periodontal pathogens, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Capnocytophaga spp. and Campylobacter rectus, and were also carriers of these species at the current examination. The results of the present study suggest that the presence of these putative periodontal pathogens at implants may not be associated with an impaired implant treatment. These species are most likely part of the normal resident microbiota of most individuals and may therefore be found at random at both stable and progressing peri-implant sites.

In earlier studies of Astra Tech and Brånemark System implants, high survival rates and small marginal bone changes have been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to compare the two systems, primarily with regard to marginal bone changes, but also with regard to other clinical variables of interest. The present paper describes the results after three years. Sixty-six patients were included in the study and randomly assigned to treatment with Astra Tech implants (n = 184) or Brånemark System implants (n=187). The marginal bone level was radiographically examined at fixture insertion, at abutment connection, at baseline (delivery of the prosthetic construction) and at 1- and 3-year follow-up examinations. Between fixture insertion and the baseline examination, the pattern of marginal bone resorption differed between the two systems. However, there was no significant marginal bone change between baseline and the 1-year examination or between the 1- and 3-year examinations. Nor were there any differences between the systems. The mean bone loss in the upper jaw between BL (baseline) and 3 years was 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm for Astra Tech implants and 0.2 +/- 0.1 mm for Brånemark System implants. The corresponding figures for the lower jaw were 0.3 +/- 0.2 mm and 0.2 +/- 0.1 mm. The survival rate of Astra Tech implants was significantly higher (98.9%) than for Brånemark System implants (95.2%). However, five of the nine implant losses in the Brånemark group occurred in one patient. For that reason, this result must be interpreted with caution. The number of patients with implant losses did not differ significantly between the systems. Few complications were recorded up to 3 years.