Search

Increased human life expectancy broadens the alternatives for missing teeth and played a role in the widespread use of dental implants and related augmentation procedures for the aging population. Though, many of these patients may have one or more diseases. These systemic conditions may directly lead to surgical complications, compromise implant/bone healing, or influence long‐term peri‐implant health and its response to biologic nuisances. Offering patients credible expectations regarding intra‐ and postoperative complications and therapeutic prognosis is an ethical and legal obligation. Clear identification of potential types of adverse effects, complications, or errors is important for decision‐making processes as they may be related to different local, systemic, and technical aspects. Therefore, the present review structures the underlying biological mechanisms, clinical evidence, and clinical recommendations for the most common systemic risk factors for implant‐related complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To review available evidence in scientific literature on oral implants of severely reduced length or diameter. Materials and methods: Electronic and hand searches up to May 2017 were performed in order to identify clinical investigations providing implant survival and/or marginal bone resorption data for extra-short implants < 7.0 mm in length and extra-narrow implants < 3.5 mm in diameter (excluding one-piece mini-implants). Results: A total of 2929 extra-short implants and 3048 extra-narrow diameter implants were investigated in 53 and 29 clinical studies, respectively. Shorter implants between 4.0 mm and 5.4 mm in length showed comparable results to implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm (95.1% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.121) and no difference regarding marginal bone resorption (0.7 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.086). Implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm, however, performed significantly better in the mandible compared with the maxilla (P = 0.010). Smaller diameters between 3.0 mm and 3.25 mm yielded a significantly lower survival rate of 94.3% than wider implants of 3.3 mm to 3.4 mm diameter (97.7%, P < 0.001), while marginal bone resorption did not differ (0.4 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.447). Conclusions: The results of the present literature review suggest that extra-short and extra-narrow-diameter implants show satisfactory survival rates of around 95% and little marginal bone resorption of around 0.5 mm after a mean follow-up of 3 years. However, implant lengths < 7 mm in the maxilla and < 5.5 mm in the mandible as well as diameters < 3.3 mm may increase early failure rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides the highlights of the Foundation for Oral Rehabilitation (FOR) Consensus Conference held at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, on November 16 and 17, 2017. The conference discussed the diagnosis, avoidance and management of complications of implant-based treatments. It presented several review papers on surgical complications, foreign body reactions and intraoral radiography.

Purpose: To compare long-term survival and marginal bone loss of immediate interantral implants in the nonaugmented maxilla subjected to immediate vs delayed loading. Materials and Methods: Graftless maxillary cross-arch rehabilitation was performed in a total of 362 patients in the years 2004 to 2013 (1,797 implants). Of the 240 patients with immediate implants replacing their failing maxillary dentition, 81% were subjected to immediate loading and 19% to delayed loading of their 4 to 6 interantral implants (980 and 235 implants, respectively). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were computed and marginal bone loss was evaluated in a stratified random sample of 20 patients per group. Results: Thirty-one of 1,215 implants failed within the mean observation period of 3.9 years, and no difference in 8-year survival estimates could be seen between immediate (97.6% [95% CI: 96.7 to 98.6]) and delayed (96.6% [95% CI: 94.3 to 98.9]) loading protocols (P = .359). Mean marginal bone resorption following implant insertion did not differ significantly between the groups (1.5 ± 1.7 mm vs 0.7 ± 1.1 mm, P = .379); however, it was significantly associated with a reduced number of implants (P = .017) and patient history of periodontal disease (P < .001). Conclusion: Immediate loading of interantral implants yields satisfactory results in the transition of patients from a failing maxillary dentition to full-arch implant rehabilitation and thus may be favored over delayed loading concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare long-term survival and marginal bone loss of late interantral implants in the nonaugmented edentulous maxilla subjected to immediate vs delayed loading. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty-two edentulous patients with implants in native, healed jawbone were subjected to either immediate loading (179 implants) or delayed loading (403 implants) of their four to six interantral implants (part I of 362 graftless maxillary cross-arch rehabilitations performed in the years 2004 to 2013). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were computed, and marginal bone loss was evaluated in a stratified random sample of 20 patients per group. Results: Fifteen of 582 implants failed within the mean observation period of 4.7 years, and no difference in 8-year survival estimates could be seen between immediate (98.3% [95% Cl: 96.4-100.0]) and delayed (96.7% [95% Cl: 94.7-98.6]) loading protocols (P = .370). Mean marginal bone resorption following implant insertion did not differ significantly between the groups (1.1 ± 1.3 mm vs 1.4 + 1.3 mm, P = .490). Conclusion: Immediate loading of interantral implants in the nonaugmented edentulous maxilla yields favorable results comparable to delayed loading and may be considered to shorten periods of removable provisional prostheses in maxillary edentulism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failing residual dentition gives rise to patient concerns about the surgical and prosthodontic management of immediate implant rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to assess subjective patient experiences of full-arch immediate implant loading. Materials and Methods: Patients made a transition from poor dentition in the maxilla (25 patients) or mandible (25 patients) to full-arch rehabilitation on the day of extraction using four interantral or interforaminal implants. Provisional restoration was performed, and postoperative pain, swelling, and patient-perceived impairment in the first week was recorded. Results: Absence of pain was reported by 40%, 52%, and 66% of patients, on the day of surgery, on the first day after surgery, and on the second day after surgery, respectively; pain levels decreased significantly (from 1.8 to 0.9, P < .001) and patient-reported swelling decreased from 1.5 to 1.3 (P = .058) on a 10-point scale. Postoperative impairment of everyday life and work (mean score = 1.1) was significantly less pronounced than impairment of food intake (mean score = 2.2; P = .004) or speech (mean score = 1.9; P = .002). Of these patients, 88% would again undergo the procedure without doubt. Conclusion: Although patient-perceived morbidity after immediate full-arch implant rehabilitation is low in general, minor masticatory and phonetic impairment should be taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To quantify the reliability of a new drilling system for implant osteotomy characterized by an eccentric sensor that automatically stops the drill upon contact with soft tissue. This safety mechanism aims to minimize surgical trauma to nerves, vessels, and the maxillary sinus mucosa. The benefits of the eccentric sensor position on planar and angulated surfaces were tested in vitro. Materials and Methods: Predicted drill protrusion after auto-stop was validated against experiments on four human cadaver mandibles (30 osteotomies with varying angles). Measurement of the drill's exit holes allowed calculation of the amount of drill protrusion, and postoperative computed tomographic scans of the mandibles were acquired to determine the drill's exit angles. Results: Mean drill protrusion into human jawbone was 0.46 ± 0.26 mm and differed significantly from expected drill protrusion, which was based on mathematical modeling, of 0.64 ± 0.3 mm. Detection of bone passage on angulated walls was seen up to 71 degrees. A central sensor position, by contrast, may result in significantly greater drill protrusion into soft tissue (mean difference: 0.55 ± 0.49 mm) that increases with the drill's exit angle (r = 0.93). Conclusion: Auto-stop drills may significantly enhance safety for the patient during osteotomy. The benefits of eccentric sensor positioning were particularly apparent when applied on angulated surfaces, whereas drill angulation was not found to influence this safety mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the methodologic quality of systematic reviews on the effect of platform switching upon peri-implant marginal bone loss. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search of several databases was conducted by two reviewers. Articles were considered for quality assessment if they met the following inclusion criterion: systematic reviews that aimed at investigating the effect of platform switching/mismatch on marginal bone levels around dental implants. Two independent examiners evaluated the review publications using two quality-ranking scales (assessment of multiple systematic reviews [AMSTAR] and Glenny checklist). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results, and Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated to appraise interrater agreement of each checklist. Results: Overall, five systematic reviews (including three of them with meta-analysis) were evaluated. The mean AMSTAR score ± standard deviation was 8.4 ± 2.6 (range, 4 to 11), and the mean Glenny score was 10.8 ± 2 .9 (range, 6 to 14), showing high statistical correlation (rs = 0.98, P = .005). Cohen interexaminer test yielded values of κ = 0.88 and κ = 0.86 for the AMSTAR and Glenny checklist, respectively. The AMSTAR items rated positive in 78%, whereas 18% met the criteria for "no" and 4% were "not applicable." Only one review article met all criteria. Items of the Glenny checklist rated positive in 73% and negative in 27%. All but one study with the lowest quality scores (finding no difference) demonstrated a clinical benefit of implant platform switching in preserving the peri-implant marginal bone loss. Conclusion: According to the quality-ranking scales appraised, substantial methodologic variability was found in systematic assessment of benefits with the platform switching concept to preserve peri-implant bone level. High-quality systematic reviews, however, generally favored platform switching over platform matching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life, and patients’ preferences towards minimally invasive treatment options for graftless rehabilitation of complete edentulism by means of dental implants. Material and methods: A MEDLINE search of literature in the English language up to the year 2013 was performed to summarise current evidence from the patient’s perspective. The final selection included 37 studies reporting on minimally invasive implant treatment of 648 edentulous maxillae and 791 edentulous mandibles in 1328 patients, via a total of 5766 implants. Results: Patient satisfaction averaged 91% with flapless implant placement (range: 77 to 100%), 89% with short implants, 87% with narrow-diameter implants (range: 80 to 93%), 90% with a reduced number of implants (range: 77 to 100%), 94% with tilted implant placement (range: 58 to 100%), and 83% with zygomatic fixtures (range: 50 to 97%). Indirect comparison yielded patient preference towards tilted implant placement compared to a reduced number of implants (P = 0.036), as well as to zygomatic implants (P = 0.001). Conclusions: While little evidence on patients’ preferences towards minimally invasive treatment alternatives vs. bone augmentation surgery could be identified from within-study comparison, it may be concluded that patient satisfaction with graftless solutions for implant rehabilitation of completely edentulous jaws is generally high. Comparative effectiveness research is needed to substantiate their positive appeal to potential implant patients and possible reduction of the indication span for invasive bone graft surgery. Conflict-of-interest notification: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a lack of consensus guidelines for the decontamination of autogenous bone grafts after exposure to a nonsterile environment during graft contouring, intraoral bone harvesting, or when inadvertently dropped off the sterile field. Transplantation of contaminated bone may cause infectious complications or even augmentation failure. When selecting the antimicrobial agent of choice to treat harvested bone for transplantation purposes, focus should be placed on the safety of the agent towards bone and osteoprogenitor cells, maximum elimination of targeted pathogens that directly affect bone tissue, and a short exposure time. In systematically reviewing study results on the degree of bone graft contamination and the effects of decontamination methods, a protocol for decontamination of autogenous bone grafts is proposed. Among various decontamination agents investigated, 1% chlorhexidine proved highly effective (mean reduction of bacterial colony-forming units compared to saline solution: 99.97%). Minimum contact time required is 15 seconds and cell proliferation can be observed up to 30 seconds of exposure. The proposed decontamination protocol (1% chlorhexidine for 15 seconds) seems to represent a reasonable compromise in reference to sterility and cell viability. Comparative effectiveness research, however, is needed before clinical recommendations may be posed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]