Search

The goal of this extension study was to compare the 10‐year outcome of 3.3 mm diameter titanium–zirconium (TiZr) or grade IV titanium (Ti) implants in mandibular implant‐overdentures. Materials and Methods: This study is the 10‐year follow‐up from a randomised, controlled, double‐blind, split‐mouth multicentre clinical trial. Patients with edentulous mandibles had received two implants in the interforaminal region (bone‐level, diameter 3.3 mm, microrough surface), one of TiZr (test) and one of Ti (control). Implant survival and success, plaque and sulcus bleeding indices, probing pocket depth, gingival margin, clinical attachment level and radiographic crestal bone levels were evaluated. Results: Fifty of 91 patients with implants were available for the 10‐year examination and 36 patients were valid for the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis. The implant success rate was calculated as 94.6% and 91.9% for the TiZr implants and the Ti implants respectively. Four implants were lost (TiZr = 1; Ti = 3) in the entire study period. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses estimated 10‐ year implant survival rate for TiZr to 98.9% and Ti 95.8%.The mean of total and functional crestal bone loss was 1.49 mm (±1.37 mm) and 0.82 mm (±1.09 mm) in the TiZr group and 1.56 mm (±1.34 mm) and 0.85 mm (±1.16 mm) in the Ti group. Conclusions: This split‐mouth design RCT on mandibular implant‐overdentures evidenced, bearing in mind its follow‐up time‐related reduced cohort size, high 10‐year implant success‐ and survival rates. These results confirm TiZr as well‐suited implant material for realising small‐diameter implants. Registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01878331. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 aim of this study was to compare survival and success rates of 6 mm-long and 10 mm-long implants in partially edentulous posterior areas. Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with a partially edentulous area were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated according to a parallel group design to receive 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants. A total of 54 implants were placed (26 x 6 mm implants). Patients were followed for 10 years after prosthetic loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival, marginal bone level changes and complications. Results: After 10 years, 17 patients (eight with 6 mm implants and nine with 10 mm implants) were available: three 6 mm and four 10 mm patients were lost to follow-up. One 6 mm implant failed during the healing period and its related prosthesis could not be placed. No implants were lost after loading. Nine patients in the 6 mm group registered a total of 15 complications: two mucositis, six decementations and seven chippings. Ten patients in the 10 mm group registered a total of 13 complications: five mucositis, two decementations and six chippings. Overall the difference for complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.22; difference in proportion = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.27). Decementations in the 6 mm group were statistically significant higher than the 10 mm group (P = 0.04; difference in proportion = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.74). Marginal bone loss at 10 years was 0.84 and 0.37 mm with the 6 mm and 10 mm groups, respectively (difference between the two groups 0.49 mm; 95% CI -0.31; 1.29; not statistically significant: t test P = 0.22). Conclusions: Rehabilitations supported by 6 mm or 10 mm-long implants showed similar clinical outcomes in terms of survival and success rates, although 6 mm implants had more decementations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of screw-retained vs cemented single crowns supported by customized zirconia abutments on implants.Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients received implant-supported (Regular Neck, Tissue-Level, Straumann AG), single-tooth restorations with customized zirconia abutments in the anterior areas. Participants were randomly assigned to the screw-retained (full-crown abutment [FCA]) group or the cemented (zirconia crown [ZrC]) group and followed up over a 10-year period. Prosthetic and biologic complications, marginal bone level (MBL), mucosal recession, and pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES, respectively) were evaluated.Results and Conclusion: There were no implant failures during the study period; after 10 years, 94% of crowns were functional. Prosthetic complications were recorded in both groups (three FCA and two ZrC), and no significant difference was found (P = .65). Two cases of mucositis were recorded, one in each group. Esthetic outcomes were assessed using PES and WES scores. MBL was 0.95 mm in the ZrC group and 0.82 mm in the FCA group, with no significant difference between groups. These encouraging preliminary results need to be confirmed with long-term follow-up on larger study samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (1) the clinical outcome of fresh frozen human allogeneic bone grafts (FFB) used for the reconstruction of severely atrophied edentulous ridges; (2) the survival rate of implants placed in the reconstructed areas; and (3) bone resorption. Materials and Methods: During a 2-year period, 19 patients with severely atrophied partially or totally edentulous ridges who were candidates for an implant-supported prosthesis were consecutively enrolled and reconstructed with FFB iliac blocks. Five to 7 months later, 117 implants were placed in the reconstructed areas, and prosthetic rehabilitation was started 5 to 6 months afterward. Results: The mean follow-up of patients after prosthetic loading was 27 months (range, 20 to 32 months). Prior to implant placement, graft exposure with partial or total loss of the graft occurred in four patients. After implant placement, bone graft exposures with partial loss of the grafts occurred in nine patients; in two patients, both grafts and implants were removed. The cumulative survival rate of implants was 90.2%. The mean (± standard deviation) graft resorption before implant placement was 0.98 ± 0.77 mm (range, 0to 4 mm), while these values were 1.21 ± 1.05 mm (range, 0to 6 mm) at loading, 1.55 ± 1.57 mm (range, 0 to 8 mm) at 12 months, and 1.93 ± 1.38 mm (range, 1 to 9 mm) at 24 months. Conclusion: Within the limits of this study (limited sample of patients and short follow-up), the reconstruction of severely atrophic edentulous ridges with FFB is associated with a relevant incidence of bone exposures and partial or total loss of the grafts, which may compromise the long-term survival of implants placed in the reconstructed areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of 6-mm and 10-mm long implants in partially edentulous posterior areas. Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients, with a partially edentulous area in the jaws with a height and width allowing the positioning of 2 to 3 adjacent 10 x 4.1 mm implants without any augmentation procedure, were randomly allocated according to a parallel group design to receive 6-mm long or 10-mm long implants. A total of 54 implants were placed (26 x 6 mm and 28 x 10 mm implants). Patients were restored 8 weeks after surgery and were followed for 5 years. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival, as well as marginal bone level changes and complications. Results: After 5 years, 18 patients were available. One 6 mm implant failed during the healing period and its related prosthesis could not be placed. No implants were lost after loading. The 6 mm group registered 5 complications (1 mucositis, 3 prosthesis decementations and 1 chipping), while only 3 were registered in the 10 mm group (2 decementations and 1 chipping). The difference in complications between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.39). Marginal bone loss at 5 years was 0.43 and 0.24 mm with the 6 mm and 10 mm groups, respectively (not statistically significant; difference between the two groups 0.19 mm; SD 0.23 mm; 95% CI -0.34;0.73; t test P = 0.42) Conclusions: Implant and prosthetic survival and success rates were similar between prostheses supported by 6-mm or 10-mm long implants. Conflict-of-interests statement: The present study was supported by grant 369_2004 from ITI, Basel, Switzerland used to provide free implants and prosthetic components to the patient. Authors declare no conflict of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]