Search

We review the evidence-based literature on the use of tilted implants in the rehabilitation of patients with maxillary atrophy. Studies from 1999 to 2010 on patients with atrophic maxilla rehabilitated with tilted implants were reviewed. Clinical series with at least 10 patients rehabilitated using tilted implants and a follow-up of at least 12 months after prosthetic load were included. Case reports and studies with missing data were excluded. In each study the following was assessed: surgical technique, prosthesis type, timing of implant loading, success rate and marginal bone loss of tilted and axial implants, complications and patient satisfaction level. Thirteen studies were included, reporting a total of 782 tilted and 666 axial implants in 319 patients. Success rates went from 91.3% to 100% for axial implants and from 92.1% to 100% for tilted implants; radiographic marginal bone loss went from 0.4 mm to 0.92 mm in tilted implants and from 0.35 mm to 1.21 mm in axial implants. No statistically significant differences were found in any of the studies. No surgical complications and only minor prosthetic complications were reported. High patient satisfaction was found with all types of prosthesis (full-arch fixed, partial fixed and overdentures) placed over tilted implants. The literature on tilted implants shows that implants placed with this technique, both used alone and combined with axially placed implants, and rehabilitated with different prosthetic options have high success rates, minimal complications and high patient satisfaction. However, lack of homogeneity among studies and relatively short follow-up periods for most studies make necessary more studies.

Purpose: To evaluate the 5-year outcome of a previously reported case series of patients with severely atrophic maxillae treated with palatally positioned implants and fixed full-arch rehabilitations., Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional clinical study of patients treated between January 2000 and January 2004 with palatally positioned implants was carried out. The parameters evaluated at the 5-year follow-up visit were: implant success rate, peri-implant soft-tissue conditions, biological and prosthetic post-loading complications, radiographic peri-implant marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction., Results: A total of 33 patients with 151 palatally positioned implants were included in the study; 15 patients had received cemented prostheses and 18 had received screwed full-arch prostheses. The success rate for palatally positioned implants after 5 years was 98.7%. Average peri-implant mucosa retraction was 0.39 ± 0.94 mm and the average probing depth was 2.89 ± 0.77 mm. Plaque Index was 0 in 63.1% of the implants, 1 in 18.8%, 2 in 8.7%, and 3 in 9.4%. The modified Bleeding Index was 0 in 71.1%, 1 in 14.1%, and 2 in 14.8%. Mucositis was found in 5.2% of the implants and none had peri-implantitis. Prosthetic complications occurred in 12.1% of the cases. Average peri-implant marginal bone loss was 1.03 ± 1.28 mm. General patient satisfaction averaged 8.2 ± 1.8 according to a 10-point visual analog scale, and good quality of life was reported by most patients., Conclusions: Palatally positioned implants were found to be an adequate treatment for patients with severely atrophic maxillae. A high implant success rate, good peri-implant soft tissue stability, low marginal bone loss, high patient satisfaction and few complications were registered.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare marginal bone loss and success rates 1 year after implants had been placed in maxillary molar sites, either immediately postextraction or after the extraction sites had healed (delayed). Materials and Methods: A retrospective case study was made of subjects treated with immediate or delayed dental implants in the maxillary molar region between January 2006 and December 2008. A protocol was prepared in which patient age, sex, implant length and diameter, type of prosthesis, buccal plate width, and use of bone grafting were recorded. After 12 months, data relating to the clinical and radiologic conditions of the implants and the success rate according to the criteria of Buser et al were recorded. The variables were analyzed statistically (Student t test, Pearson correlation, Games- Howell test). Results: The study included 123 implants placed in 70 patients; 35 implants were immediate and 88 were delayed. Two immediate and six delayed implants failed, resulting in success rates of 94.3% and 93.2%, respectively. Average marginal bone loss was 0.56 mm for immediate implants and 0.67 mm for delayed implants. Conclusions: The placement of immediate implants in maxillary molar sites achieved similar results to implants placed in healed sites in the same region after 12 months. No statistically significant differences were found between implant survival rates or average marginal bone loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to determine bone density in designated implant sites using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to evaluate possible correlations between age, gender, insertion torque measurements, and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values. Materials and Methods: Completely and partially edentulous patients were treated with implants between 2007 and 2008 and evaluated retrospectively. The preoperative examination included a panoramic radiograph, CBCT, diagnostic casts, and a clinical examination of the jaws. With the CBCT scans, bone densities were recorded in Hounsfield units (HU). Insertion torque values and implant stability measurements (via RFA) were also noted. Results: Mean bone density and insertion torque values were 623 ± 209 HU and 42.4 ± 4 Ncm, respectively, for the 82 implants placed. Mean primary stability (implant stability quotient) was 62.4 ± 8. The differences in mean bone density at implant sites in the mandible (717 ± 204 HU) and the maxilla (490 ± 128 HU) were statistically significant for all patients (P < .05). There was a statistically significant relationship between bone density values and insertion torque measurements for implant sites in the anterior mandible (r = 0.562, P < .05), as well as between bone density and RFA values for men (r = 0.412, P < .05). Conclusions: Bone density measurements using preoperative CBCT may be helpful as an objective diagnostic tool. These values, in conjunction with RFA values and insertion torque measurements, can provide the implant surgeon with an objective assessment of bone quality and may be especially useful where poor-quality bone is suspected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims were to evaluate survival rates of dental implants in patients wearing maxillary and mandibular overdentures in relation to age, sex, smoking, implant splinting or non-splinting, the maxilla rehabilitated, and number of implants per dental arch. This was a prospective study of patients who were completely edentulous in either mandible or maxilla or both, rehabilitated with implant-retained overdentures, with a follow-up of at least 3 years. 95 patients with 107 overdentures were supported by 360 implants were included in the study. Rehabilitations were monitored over an average of 95 ± 20.3 months (range 36-159). Implant survival in the maxilla was 91.9% and in the mandible 98.6%, representing a statistically significant difference (P < .05). Age, sex and implant splinting did not influence survival rates significantly. Smokers presented a lower survival rate. Implant numbers in the maxilla had a significant influence on survival, 100% for 6 but 85.7% for 4. Three mandibular implants achieved higher survival rates (100%) but with 2 (96.6%) or 4 (99%) survival was lower, although without significant difference. Long-term results suggest that 3-implant mandibular overdentures have an equivalent survival rate to 4-implant overdentures. In the maxilla, results showed that 6 implants may be the best treatment strategy. For smokers with fewer implants retaining the overdentures, there were higher numbers of implant failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]