Search

Purpose: To study long-term function of narrow diameter implants (NDI:s) and if reduced implant-tooth distance negatively impacts adjacent teeth., Materials and Methods: A clinical and radiological follow-up of NDI:s replacing maxillary laterals and mandibular incisors was performed. Subjects that received 3.0-3.3 mm-diameter single implants from 3 units in Uppsala and Västerås, Sweden, between 2002 and 2011 were offered to participate in this retrospective study., Results: Twenty-seven patients (30 implants) underwent clinical and CBCT examination, mean follow-up time was 63.3 months. On average, the implant-tooth distance was 1.6 mm at the cervical region and 17 implants were placed 1 mm or less to the adjacent root. Additionally, 2 patients (3 implants) underwent clinical examination (I). Twenty-seven patients (36 implants) declined the examination but agreed to an interview (II). At the time of the follow-up, all implants had good function, and implant survival of group I and II together was 97.2%. In both groups, the 2 main patient concerns were discoloration and regression of the buccal gingiva., Conclusion: Survival of implants is in accordance to standard diameter studies and although most implants were placed very close to the adjacent teeth, no pathologies could be linked to this except aesthetic concerns., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe how dentists evaluated the importance of various items related to a treatment choice between fixed partial dentures (FPD) and single implants, and to analyze if the differences could be explained by dentist-related variables such as social and demographic attributes, job situation, and attitudes., Materials and Methods: Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 2,059 Swedish general dentists, with a response rate of 76%. In the questionnaire, the choice between an FPD and a single-implant restoration in a clinical situation was presented. Fifteen items were constructed and the dentists were asked to mark on visual analogue scales the relative importance he or she gave the different items. The items were analyzed through principal components analysis, where a three-factor solution was obtained; the factors were labeled as "time," "health," and "comfort." The factors were run as dependent variables in multiple regression analyses., Results: The items evaluated as most important were "prognosis for delivered treatment" and "patient's wish." Large individual differences were seen, but the differences between groups of dentists were small. Male dentists considered the "health" and the "comfort" factors to be more important compared to female dentists. The attitudinal variable "patient information" was significantly associated with the "time" factor and, inversely, with the "comfort" factor., Conclusion: Differences between individuals were great, but between groups of dentists the differences were only minor. Multivariately, the attitudinal variable "patient information" showed significant associations with the "time" and the "comfort" factors. Dentist-related variables explained little of the variations. The results further indicated a low personal knowledge concerning implant treatments. Psychologic methods might explain more of the individual differences in prosthodontic decision making, but these are not easily used in a questionnaire study.