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]

Aim: This case report aims to illustrate a clinical protocol that allows for the rehabilitation of patients requiring extensive osteotomy, simultaneous implant placement, and full-arch, screwed-in prosthetics in one session. This protocol allows for the improvement of the aesthetics and functionality of the fixed implant-supported prosthesis through the preoperative planning of all surgical procedures, including osteotomy, and of the prosthesis through the application of 3D-printing technology for the creation of surgical templates and prostheses. Methods: This case report concerns a 72-year-old patient, ASA1, who, following diagnosis, the establishment of a treatment plan, and the provision of informed consent, opted for an immediate, full-arch rehabilitation of the lower arch. The digital planning stage started with the correct positioning of the fixtures. The proper bone levels were found and used to guide the creation of the provisional screwed-in prothesis. Two templates with the same supports (landmarks/pins) were then 3D-printed: a positioning template, including a slit to assist the surgeon during the osteotomy, and a surgery template to assist the surgeon during the implants' positioning. A screwed-in prosthesis encased in resin C&B MFH (NEXTDENT®, Soesterberg, The Netherlands) was delivered. Minimal occlusal adjustments were performed. Results: In a single clinical session, through careful planning and the pre-operative 3D printing of a prosthesis, a temporary implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation was possible in a case that required an extended osteotomy. Clinically, the correspondence between the virtual design phase and the final realization was consistent. At a functional level, the provisional prosthesis required minimal occlusal adjustments and the DVO values obtained in the immediate post-operative period were found to be comparable to those of the virtual design. By planning the final position of the bone and the implants in advance, it was possible to deliver a full-arch prothesis with proper implant emergence, occlusal vertical dimensions, and occlusal relationship. Conclusion: This fully digital protocol allows the clinician to preview and plan the osteotomy and implant surgery as well as the delivery of the temporary, immediately loaded, complete, fixed prosthesis in patients who are candidates for post-extraction surgery with the need for severe osteotomy. [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: 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]

Copyright of International Journal of Computerized Dentistry is the property of Quintessence Publishing Company Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: The aim of the present publication was to report on the EAO Workshop group‐4 discussions and consensus statements on the five reviews previously prepared. These reviews provided the scientific evidence on the effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio, on reconstructions with cantilevers in fully and partially edentulous patients, on biological and technical complications of tilted in comparison with straight implants, and on the effects of osseointegrated implants functioning in a residual dentition. Material and Methods: The group discussed, evaluated, corrected where deemed appropriate, and made recommendations to the authors regarding the following five reviews submitted: (a) Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes?; (b) Implant‐supported cantilevered fixed dental rehabilitations in fully edentulous patients; (c) and in partially edentulous patients; (d) Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses; (e) What are the adverse effects of osseointegrated implants functioning among natural teeth of a residual dentition? Based on the five manuscripts and the discussion among the group as well as the plenum members, the major findings were summarized, consensus statements were formulated, clinical recommendations were proposed, and areas of future research were identified. Results: Crown‐to‐implant ratios ranging from 0.9 to 2.2 did not influence the occurrence of biological or technical complications also in single‐tooth restorations. Reconstructions with cantilevers for the rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous jaws showed high implant and reconstruction survival rates. In contrast, the rate of complications—in particular associated with veneering material—was high during the observation period of 5–10 years. The data reported were primarily derived from studies with high risk of bias. The data for single‐implant reconstructions were small. There was no evidence that distally tilted implants were associated with higher failure rates and increased amounts of marginal bone loss. The data supporting these findings, however, were at high risk of bias and frequently incompletely reported. Frequent positional changes occurred between the natural teeth and the implant‐supported restorations. These changes were more pronounced in younger individuals, and even though they were reduced with age, they still occurred in adult patients. Even though these changes were frequent, potential implications for the patient are unclear. Conclusions: The use of single‐tooth restorations with crown‐to‐implant ratio in between 0.9 and 2.2 may be considered a viable treatment option. Multiunit reconstructions with cantilevers are a viable treatment option in fully and partially edentulous patients. Clinicians and patients should be aware, however, that complications are frequent and primarily related to resin material used for veneering. There is some evidence that tilting an implant does affect stability of the implant and the surrounding bone. Treatment options to tilted implants should carefully be considered, as the effect on soft tissues and on prosthesis behavior is poorly reported for tilted implants. Positional changes in the dentition in relation to implant‐supported restorations occur frequently. The patient should be informed about the possible need for a treatment related to these changes in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year survival and success rates of 3.3 mm dental implants either made from titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloy or from Grade IV titanium (Ti Grade IV) in mandibular implant-based removable overdentures. Methods: The core study had a follow-up period of 36 months and was designed as a randomized, controlled, double-blind, split-mouth multicenter clinical trial. Patients with edentulous mandibles received two Straumann Bone Level implants (diameter 3.3 mm, SLActive®), one of TiZr (test) and one of Ti Grade IV (control), in the interforaminal region. This follow-up study recruited patients from the core study and evaluated the plaque and sulcus bleeding indices, radiographic crestal bone level, as well as implant survival and success 60 months after implant placement. Results: Of the 91 patients who initially received implants, 75 completed the 36 month follow-up and 49 were available for the 60 month examination. Two patients were excluded so that a total of 47 patients with an average age of 72 ± 8 years were analysed. The characteristics and 36-month performance of the present study cohort did not differ from the non-included initial participants (p > 0.05). In the period since the 36-month follow-up examination, no implant was lost. The cumulative implant survival rate was 98.9 % for the TiZr group and 97.8 % for the Ti Grade IV group. Crestal bone level changes at 60 months were not different in the test and control group (TiZr -0.60 ± 0.69 mm and Ti Grade IV -0.61 ± 0.83 mm; p = 0.96). The cumulative implant success rate after 60 months was 95.8 and 92.6 % for TiZr and Ti Grade IV, respectively. Conclusions: After 60 months, the positive outcomes of the 36 month results for TiZr and Ti Grade IV implants were confirmed, with no significant differences with regard to crestal bone level change, clinical parameters and survival or success rates. TiZr implants performed equally well compared to conventional Ti Grade IV 3.3 mm diameter-reduced implants for mandibular removable overdentures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of technologies that merge computerized tomography X-ray imaging and 3-dimensional (3D) planning software allow the surgeon to digitally elaborate on the computer the position, length, and diameter of every implant to be placed. Following this approach, the placement is guided in a 3D digital model, and the implants are placed in the final position avoiding eventual anatomic structures. In this case report, the patient's remaining mandibular teeth were extracted, and the patient received 8 implants with the help of a computer surgical guide. The case was planned using SimPlant and a bone-supported guide. Because of the high precision of the planning, it was possible to realize a provisional rehabilitation before the actual surgery. The planning allows placement of parallel implants to optimize the prosthetic procedure and outcome. An immediate provisional implant was fixed with a flow composite on the temporary abutments and then refined in the dental laboratory. The patient received the provisional rehabilitation the same day of the surgery. After 6 weeks of healing, the final impression was taken and the prosthesis was finalized with a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing titanium full-arch screwed framework with composite veneering. A 6-month follow-up showed good integration of the prostheses and success of all 8 implants. The use of surgical computer-guided planning changes the surgeon's approach: whereas before the use of conventional guides permitted a certain degree of offset from what was planned, the use of computer guides allows the implant to be inserted in a far more precise way. It is obvious that careful planning is the key factor to avoid implant misplacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the present publication was to report on the EAO Workshop group-4 discussions and consensus statements on the five reviews previously prepared. These reviews provided the scientific evidence on the effect of crown-to-implant ratio, on reconstructions with cantilevers in fully and partially edentulous patients, on biological and technical complications of tilted in comparison with straight implants, and on the effects of osseointegrated implants functioning in a residual dentition., Material and Methods: The group discussed, evaluated, corrected where deemed appropriate, and made recommendations to the authors regarding the following five reviews submitted: (a) Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes?; (b) Implant-supported cantilevered fixed dental rehabilitations in fully edentulous patients; (c) and in partially edentulous patients; (d) Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses; (e) What are the adverse effects of osseointegrated implants functioning among natural teeth of a residual dentition? Based on the five manuscripts and the discussion among the group as well as the plenum members, the major findings were summarized, consensus statements were formulated, clinical recommendations were proposed, and areas of future research were identified., Results: Crown-to-implant ratios ranging from 0.9 to 2.2 did not influence the occurrence of biological or technical complications also in single-tooth restorations. Reconstructions with cantilevers for the rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous jaws showed high implant and reconstruction survival rates. In contrast, the rate of complications-in particular associated with veneering material-was high during the observation period of 5-10 years. The data reported were primarily derived from studies with high risk of bias. The data for single-implant reconstructions were small. There was no evidence that distally tilted implants were associated with higher failure rates and increased amounts of marginal bone loss. The data supporting these findings, however, were at high risk of bias and frequently incompletely reported. Frequent positional changes occurred between the natural teeth and the implant-supported restorations. These changes were more pronounced in younger individuals, and even though they were reduced with age, they still occurred in adult patients. Even though these changes were frequent, potential implications for the patient are unclear., Conclusions: The use of single-tooth restorations with crown-to-implant ratio in between 0.9 and 2.2 may be considered a viable treatment option. Multiunit reconstructions with cantilevers are a viable treatment option in fully and partially edentulous patients. Clinicians and patients should be aware, however, that complications are frequent and primarily related to resin material used for veneering. There is some evidence that tilting an implant does affect stability of the implant and the surrounding bone. Treatment options to tilted implants should carefully be considered, as the effect on soft tissues and on prosthesis behavior is poorly reported for tilted implants. Positional changes in the dentition in relation to implant-supported restorations occur frequently. The patient should be informed about the possible need for a treatment related to these changes in the long term., (© 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Prosthetic complications on implant-supported restorations have been documented in several papers published in the literature. Several manufacturers are present on the market but results are often cumulated and may thus be misleading. The objective of the present review is to assess the prosthetic complications of implant-supported restorations with particular interest of the results obtained with prostheses from different manufacturers., Evidence Acquisition: A manual search of Medline/PubMed was carried out up to June 2016, yielding a total of 6832 articles, which were narrowed down to 1450, then 347 abstracts to include 55 papers after full text reading. Papers with at least 5 years of follow-up reporting on prosthetic complications of single and fixed partial prosthesis were included. Prosthetic complications were divided into mechanical and technical complications, and reported in a table., Evidence Synthesis: Overall 14.4% of prosthetic complication was found for a total of 6623 restorations followed for an average of 7.4 years (range 5-16 years). Results where then sorted and compared. Single crowns were affected by 1.4% of mechanical complications and 10.9% of technical complications after a mean of 7.4 years. Fixed partial prosthesis were affected by 2.5% of mechanical complications and 18% of technical complications. Screw-retained and cemented restorations were calculated to have a 5 years rate of complications of 21.2% and 9.3%, respectively, which demonstrated a statistically difference with fisher exact test with P<0.1. Only 3 manufacturers presented more than 10 articles and were directly compared with Fisher's exact test with P<0.1. The incidence of overall complications was estimated to be after 5 years of 11.2%, 10.8% and 13.8% for Straumann, Nobel, and Astratech, respectively, but dividing results in mechanical and technical complications, gave different results. Straumann was estimated to have less mechanical complications after 5 years in respect to Nobel and Astratech, but the three were similar for technical complications., Conclusions: although studies present very different material and methods and do not report all data, some conclusions can be made. The difference between mechanical complications lead the authors to suppose that there might be a difference in results obtained by different implant abutment connections. It is also noticed that all papers were published by expert clinicians and universities research centers that apply rigid surgical and prosthetic protocols and use original abutments.