European Journal of Oral Implantology最新文献

Aim: In this review, we look at the factor of the surgical experience and surgical workload in a variety of surgical disciplines and its effect on the intraoperative and postoperative complications rate.

Materials and methods: An extensive systematic electronic search was carried out on the relevant databases. Two independent reviewers were engaged in selecting appropriate articles in line with the protocol.

Results: It was very interesting to see that only 52 studies could be identified as per the inclusion criteria and search keywords. This included studies from 1990 onwards, spanning all surgical disciplines. Six studies were identified in third molar surgery, one of the most common surgeries practiced across all surgical disciplines. Seven appropriate oral implant surgery studies were identified, covering two-stage implants and immediately loaded implants. The evidence was overwhelming that the surgeon's experience positively correlates with the level of osseointegration and implant success. An interesting study from general surgery highlighted the fact it is not unusual to see senior surgeons selected to operate on complex patients or carry out complex surgical procedures than their junior colleagues. In face, this may explain why a number of studies identified no difference in the surgical complications between seniors and juniors.

Conclusions: Despite the fact that experience matters, many factors can influence the outcome of the surgery. If the surgeon, despite his/her lack of seniority, manages to utilise experience appropriately then there will be a beneficial outcome for the patient.

Purpose: To ascertain whether in the presence of a previously endodontically treated tooth with periapical pathology and/or symptoms and an uncertain prognosis, it is better to endodontically retreat it or to replace the tooth with a single-implant-supported crown.

Materials and methods: Twenty patients requiring the treatment of a previously endodontically treated tooth, with periapical pathology and/or symptoms of endodontic origin and an uncertain prognosis, as judged by the recruiting investigator, were randomly allocated to endodontic retreatment (Endo group, 10 patients) or tooth extraction and replacement with an implant-supported crown (Implant group, 10 patients) according to a parallel-group design at a single centre. Patients were followed to 3 years after completion of the treatment. Outcome measures were: failure of the procedure, complications, marginal bone level changes at both teeth and implants, endodontic radiographic success (teeth only), number of patients' visits and days to complete the treatment, patients' chair time, costs, aesthetics assessed using the pink aesthetic score (PES) for the soft tissues and the white aesthetic score (WES) for the tooth/crown recorded by independent assessors.

Results: No patient dropped out. One endodontically retreated tooth fractured and another had a crown loosening. There were no statistically significant differences for treatment failure or complications (difference in proportions = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.29; P (Fisher exact test) = 1.000). The mean marginal bone levels at endodontic retreatment/implant insertion were 2.10 ± 0.66 mm for the Endo group and 0.05 ± 0.15 mm for the Implant group. Three years after completion of the treatment, teeth lost on average 0.23 ± 0.82 mm and implants 0.62 ± 0.68 mm, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -0.39 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.12 to 0.33; P (t test) = 0.267). Three years after completion of the endodontic retreatment, of the four teeth that originally had a periapical radiolucency, one was lost, two showed complete healing, and one showed radiographic improvement. There were no statistically significant differences for the number of patients' visits (Endo = 6.67 ± 0.71; Implant = 6.10 ± 0.74; mean difference = 0.57; 95% CI: -0.14 to 1.27; P (t test) = 0.106). It took significantly more days to complete the implant rehabilitation (Endo = 61 ± 12.97; Implant = 191.40 ± 75.04; mean difference = -130.40; 95% CI: -184.45 to -76.35; P (t test) < 0.001) but less patients' chair time (Endo = 629.44 ± 43.62 min; Implant = 326 ± 196.99 min; mean difference = 303.44; 95% CI: 160.87 to 446.02; P (t test) = 0.001). Implant treatment was significantly more expensive (Endo = €1,588.89 ± 300.81; Implant = €2,095 ± 158.90; mean difference = €-506.11; 95% CI: -735.41 to -276.82; P (t test) < 0.001). Three years after treatment completion, mean PES we

Purpose: To summarise systematic reviews that assess the effects of different interventions for implant prosthetic rehabilitation in partially edentulous patients with the presence of bone atrophy.

Materials and methods: Only systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with partially edentulous adult patients presenting bone defects were included. Treatments of interest were bone augmentation procedures, use of short, tilted or zygomatic implants, sinus lift and transposition of the inferior alveolar nerve. Outcome variables considered were: prosthetic and implant failure, complications, radiological and clinical peri-implant bone level variation, aesthetic and functional satisfaction, and vestibular peri-implant soft tissue recession. A search of systematic reviews of RCTs selected from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and the Prospero register published in the past 5 years (May 2012 - May 2017) was performed. Systematic reviews were also manually searched. Independent data extraction by two authors using predefined data fields, including ROBIS risk of bias, was executed.

Results: A total of 12 systematic reviews of RCTs were identified for inclusion in the overview. Eight reviews were considered at low risk of bias. Short implants (≤ 8 mm) were associated with a notable decrease in complications compared to long implants with bone augmentation procedures. Many trials compared different sinus lift procedures and different bone augmentation techniques. None of these indicated that one procedure could reduce prosthetic or implant failures when compared to the other. The use of a membrane can contribute to the regeneration of the hard tissue in horizontal augmentation. Different membranes or bone substitutes did not give substantially different results. No data are available regarding comparisons involving zygomatic implants or tilted implants or transposition of the alveolar nerve.

Conclusions: Overall, the evidence is not sufficiently robust to determine the best treatment for implant prosthetic rehabilitation in partially edentulous patients presenting bone atrophy. In terms of vertical defects, if the short implants can be used they should be used because the number of complications are reduced compared to longer implants with sinus lift or bone augmentation. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised because long-term follow-up studies were not available. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the comparison between different vertical bone augmentation techniques in atrophic posterior mandible because quantitative meta-analyses were not performed. With regards to horizontal defects, the use of a membrane appears to increase the regeneration of the hard tissue but no differences were detected in prosthesis or implant failures or in complications.

This section presents a brief review of articles on dental implants considered of special interest for the reader, in order to encourage the developing of research, the interest for data analysis and the attention to scientific publications. Your comments are welcome. Please contact Dr Michele Nieri at michelenieri@gmail.com.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of immediately loaded cross-arch maxillary prostheses supported by zygomatic implants vs conventional implants placed in augmented bone.

Materials and methods: In total, 71 edentulous patients with severely atrophic maxillas without sufficient bone volumes for placing dental implants, or when it was possible to place only two implants in the anterior area (minimal diameter 3.5 mm and length of 8 mm) and less than 4 mm of bone height subantrally, were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive zygomatic implants (35 patients) to be loaded immediately vs grafting with a xenograft, followed after 6 months of graft consolidation by placement of six to eight conventional dental implants submerged for 4 months (36 patients). For immediate loading, zygomatic implants had to be inserted with an insertion torque superior to 40 Ncm. Screw-retained metal reinforced acrylic provisional prostheses were provided, to be replaced by definitive Procera Implant Bridge Titanium prostheses (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden), with ceramic or acrylic veneer materials 4 months after initial loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis, implant and augmentation failures, any complications, quality of life (OHIP-14), patients' number of days with total or partial impaired activity, time to function and number of dental visits, assessed by independent assessors. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading.

Results: No augmentation procedure failed. Five patients dropped out from the augmentation group. Six prostheses could not be delivered or failed in the augmentation group vs one prosthesis in the zygomatic group, the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = -16.5%; P = 0.045; 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.01). Eight patients lost 35 implants in the augmentation group vs two patients who lost four zygomatic implants, the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = -20.1%; P = 0.037; 95% CI: -0.38 to -0.02). A total of 14 augmented patients were affected by 22 complications, vs 28 zygomatic patients (40 complications), the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = 34.8%; P = 0.005; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54). The 1-year OHIP-14 score was 3.93 ± 5.86 for augmented patients and 3.97 ± 4.32 for zygomatic patients with no statistically significant differences between groups (mean difference = 0.04; 95% CI: -2.56 to 2.65; P = 0.747). Both groups had significantly improved OHIP-14 scores from before rehabilitation (P < 0.001 for both augmented and zygomatic patients). On average, the number of days of total infirmity was 7.42 ± 3.17 for the augmented group and 7.17 ± 1.96 for the zygomatic group, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -0.25; 95% CI: -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.692). The number of days of partial infirmity were on average 14.24 ± 4.64 for th

Purpose: To evaluate whether there is a difference in aesthetic outcomes positioning immediate post-extractive implants in the natural position (where the tooth should have been in relation to adjacent teeth/implants) or about 3 mm more palatally.

Materials and methods: Just after tooth extraction, 30 patients requiring one single immediate maxillary post-extractive implant, from second to second premolar, were randomly allocated to receive either an implant positioned in the natural "central" position where the tooth should have been (central group; 15 patients) or about 3 mm more palatally (palatal group; 15 patients) according to a parallel group design at three different centres. When needed, sites were reconstructed and bone-to-implant gaps were filled with granules of anorganic bovine bone, covered by resorbable collagen barriers. Implants were left submerged for 4 months and rehabilitated with provisional crowns, replaced after 4 months by metal-ceramic definitive crowns. Patients were followed to 1 year after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes and patient satisfaction, recorded by blinded assessors.

Results: Two patients from the palatal group dropped-out up to 1 year after loading. One implant failed in each group (6.7%), the difference being not statistically significant (difference in proportion = -0.01; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; P (Fisher's exact test) = 1.000). One patient from the central group was affected by one complication, vs two palatal group patients (two complications); the difference being not statistically significant (difference in proportion = -0.09; 95% CI -0.32 to 0.15; P (Fisher's exact test) = 0.583). One year after loading, the mean PES was 9.93 ± 2.67 for the central and 8.75 ± 4.37 for the palatal group; the difference being not statistically significant (mean difference = 1.18; 95% CI: -1.87 to 4.23; P (t test) = 0.427). One year after loading, patients in the central group lost on average 0.23 ± 0.17 mm of peri-implant marginal bone and those of the palatal group 0.24 ± 0.25 mm, the difference being not statistically significant (mean difference = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.21; P (t test) = 0.926). Patients in both groups were equally satisfied at 1 year after loading for both function and aesthetics (P (Mann-Whitney U test) = 0.494 and P (Mann-Whitney U test) = 0.076, respectively).

Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that positioning of immediate post-extractive implants 3 mm more palatally is not improving aesthetics, however, the sample size of the present study was limited, thus larger trials are needed to confirm of reject the present findings.

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of 6.6 mm long flapless-placed single implants loaded immediately or early loaded at 6 weeks.

Materials and methods: Thirty patients each received two single Nanotite External Hex Biomet 3i implants, which were then randomly allocated to be either immediately or early loaded, according to a split-mouth design. Implants had to be inserted with a torque superior to 40 Ncm. Provisional crowns were put in slight occlusal contact and replaced by definitive crowns 3 months after loading. Patients were followed for 9 years after loading. Outcome measures were implant failures, biological and biomechanical complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes and patient preference.

Results: A total of 29 implants were immediately loaded, while 31 were early loaded. Nine years after loading, three patients dropped out. One implant failed in each group within 2 months after loading. One patient asked for the immediately loaded crown to be remade for aesthetic reasons and then again to have both metal-ceramic crowns replaced by full ceramic crowns. Another patient had his immediately loaded crown remade after repeated debonding. Six patients from each group experienced complications, the difference being not statistically significant (difference of proportions = 0.00; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20, P = 1.000). Peri-implant bone loss was 0.60 mm for patients with immediately loaded implants and 0.46 mm for early loaded ones, which was not significantly different (mean difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.41, P = 0.283). All but one patient had no preference for either procedure after 9 years.

Conclusions: Flapless-placed 6.6 mm long single implants can be immediately loaded and remain successful up to 9 years after loading. Conflict-of-interest statement:

Movement disorders encompass a wide range of medical conditions that demonstrate changes to muscle function and tone which present with orofacial dyskinesia and dystonia. The most common conditions exhibiting these features are Parkinson's disease, Down syndrome, chorea and epilepsy.

Aim: To establish whether implant success in patients suffering from movement disorders is similar to the general population, identifying risk factors and noting recommendations that may aid maintenance programmes.

Method: PubMed and Medline searches, combined with a manual search of the reference lists of identified full text studies. In total, 19 patient case reports and 11 patient case series were identified for inclusion in the review.

Results: Implant survival in patients may be less than expected in patients with movement disorders, but evidence points to early rather than late failures. Oral hygiene control was widely reported as an issue, although there was insufficient evidence to imply that a lack of oral care will cause more rapid deterioration in implant patients with movement disorders. Maintenance requirements were low for fixed restorations, but more frequently reported in patients treated with overdentures, with the attachment mechanism and the prostheses requiring replacement. Chewing and quality of life in relation to prosthesis wear were improved.

Conclusion: Provision of implant-supported prostheses improves chewing and quality of life for patients with movement disorders and should be considered as an option in the treatment planning for tooth loss in this group of patients. However, straightforward designs that lend themselves to easier long-term maintenance should be adopted.