International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)最新文献

Purpose: To systematically screen and summarise the available literature on when and how often it is advisable to perform supportive peri-implant care on implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses to maintain peri-implant health.

Materials and methods: The authors employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes tool. A literature search was conducted on PubMed for randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies, reporting results on supportive peri-implant care for full-arch dental prostheses with a follow-up period of at least 1 year. The studies were selected in a blind process with an agreement rate of 100%. For all the included studies, quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Results: The application of the search terms on PubMed led to the selection of 915 results. Only 11 studies were included in the review. Eight of these reported the frequency of supportive peri-implant care, and three detailed the procedures adopted. The number of patients included ranged from 15 to 85, with a mean age from 60.4 to 68.4 years. None of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias.

Conclusions: Removal of implant-supported prostheses is a crucial aspect in the long-term care of patients rehabilitated with full-arch restorations. Although no specific indications can be drawn with respect to the frequency at which supportive peri-implant care should be delivered and the regime used to do so, practitioners should consider performing professional oral hygiene measures every 6 months and removing prostheses at least once per year. All interventions should be tailored to the patient's risk profile and characteristics.

Purpose: To establish consensus-driven guidelines that could support the clinical decision-making process for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla and ultimately improve long-term treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Materials and methods: A total of 33 participants were enrolled (18 active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration and 15 international experts). Based on the available evidence, the development group discussed and proposed an initial list of 20 statements, which were later evalu-ated by all participants. After the forms were completed, the responses were sent for blinded ana-lysis. In most cases, when a consensus was not reached, the statements were rephrased and sent to the participants for another round of evaluation. Three rounds were planned.

Results: After the first round of voting, participants came close to reaching a consensus on six statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other fourteen. Following this, nineteen statements were rephrased and sent to participants again for the second round of voting, after which a consensus was reached for six statements and almost reached for three statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other ten. All 13 statements upon which no consensus was reached were rephrased and included in the third round. After this round, a consensus was achieved for an additional nine statements and almost achieved for three statements, but no consensus was reached for the remaining statement.

Conclusion: This Delphi consensus highlights the importance of accurate preoperative planning, taking into consideration the maxillomandibular relationship to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of the final restoration. Emphasis is placed on the role played by the sinus bony walls and floor in providing essential elements for bone formation, and on evaluation of bucco-palatal sinus width for choosing between lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. Tilted and trans-sinus implants are considered viable options, whereas caution is advised when placing pterygoid implants. Zygomatic implants are seen as a potential option in specific cases, such as for completely edentulous elderly or oncological patients, for whom conventional alternatives are unsuitable.

Incomplete orthodontic therapy can lead to severe root resorption, resulting in mobile and non-restorable teeth. This clinical report presents the diagnosis, treatment planning and oral rehabilitation of a young woman with failing dentition in the anterior maxilla due to orthodontically induced root resorption. The patient's chief complaint was mobile maxillary anterior teeth 2 years after discontinuing orthodontic treatment. Radiographic and clinical evaluations revealed a missing right first premolar and left premolars and grade III mobility from the right canine to the left lateral incisor. Due to a hopeless prognosis, extraction of the maxillary anterior teeth was planned, followed by grafting procedures. Four implants were immediately placed in the fresh sockets of the canine and central sites, and a removable provisional appliance was delivered to contour the soft tissues involved. The final restorations consisted of two three-unit layered zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Well-planned immediate implant therapy and zirconia restorations can successfully replace mobile teeth with severe root resorption caused by external surface resorption from incomplete orthodontic treatment. Combining grafting procedures during implant placement can replace hard tissue lost due to extractions, whereas provisional restorations can re-establish optimal tissue architecture in the aesthetic zone. The present case offers insight into effective strategies for treating non-compliant or uncooperative patients with failing dentition due to orthodontically induced root resorption.

The following amendments are made to the published article: Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 2023;16(3): 211-222; First published 28 September 2023.

Purpose: The goal of soft tissue augmentation is to improve the volume around implants and thus achieve better aesthetic and functional properties. The present review aims to make recommendations and guide clinicians in performing soft tissue augmentation procedures, focusing on the importance of timing.

Overview: Soft tissue augmentation can be performed at different time points: before or after implant placement, at implant placement (immediate/delayed), at healing abutment connection or after final restoration. Before/after implant placement or at healing abutment connection are considered the gold standard time points at which to perform soft tissue augmentation due to the possibility of achieving complete coverage of the soft tissue graft or its substitute through simple flap elevation and the easy handling of tissue. On the other hand, performing soft tissue augmentation at implant placement or after crown delivery seems to be less predictable due to the different healing approaches and the unexpected shrinkage that occurs.

Conclusion: Timing needs to be considered when performing soft tissue augmentation, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages related to operator experience, implant position and patient expectations. Employing a reliable approach at the appropriate time of intervention could limit complications.

Zygomatic implant-supported rehabilitation has grown in popularity for use in clinical practice. Although many studies have been carried out into the surgical procedure, the prosthetic workflow is not clearly defined and standard techniques are not readily applied; thus, a digital approach may ultimately streamline the procedure. In the present study, the authors examined a digital workflow for immediately loaded prostheses supported by zygomatic implants. The novel technique proposed by the present authors, involving use of an impression reference, achieved promising results in terms of accuracy and procedural simplification.

Purpose: Guided bone regeneration is a widely used technique for the treatment of atrophic arches. A broad range of devices have been employed to achieve bone regeneration. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical and histological findings for a new titanium CAD/CAM device for guided bone regeneration, namely semi-occlusive titanium mesh.

Materials and methods: Nine partially edentulous patients with vertical and/or horizontal bone defects underwent a guided bone regeneration procedure to enable implant placement. The device used as a barrier was a semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh with a laser sintered microperforated scaffold with a pore size of 0.3 mm, grafted with autogenous and xenogeneic bone in a ratio of 80:20. Eight months after guided bone regeneration, surgical and healing complications were evaluated and histological analyses of the regenerated bone were performed.

Results: A total of 9 patients with 11 treated sites were enrolled. Two healing complications were recorded: one late exposure of the device and one early infection (18.18%). At 8 months, well-structured new regenerated trabecular bone with marrow spaces was mostly present. The percentage of newly formed bone was 30.37% ± 4.64%, that of marrow spaces was 56.43% ± 4.62%, that of residual xenogeneic material was 12.16% ± 0.49% and that of residual autogenous bone chips was 1.02% ± 0.14%.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, the results show that semi-occlusive titanium mesh could be used for vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation. Nevertheless, further follow-ups and clinical and histological studies are required.

Purpose: To evaluate the survival of and incidence of mechanical complications with single- and multiple-unit cement-retained posterior implant-supported restorations with custom CAD/CAM Atlantis titanium abutments (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA).

Materials and methods: This retrospective clinical study analysed 196 Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX Internal Hexagon implants (Dentsply Sirona) placed in 85 patients between January 2011 and January 2021. Customised Atlantis titanium abutments and cement-retained metal-ceramic crowns were employed. The clinical outcomes recorded were implant and abutment survival rates, and mechanical complications. The results were analysed according to implant length and diameter, arch, implant position and single- or multiple-unit restoration.

Results: Over the observation period (up to 10 years), implant and abutment survival rates were 98.5% and 100.0%, respectively. The mean observation period for the single- and multiple-unit implant-supported restorations was 106.00 ± 20.84 months, with a minimum of 41 months and a maximum of 120 months. For the 67 single-unit and 129 multiple-unit posterior implant-supported restorations, four mechanical complications were recorded: two cases of screw loosening, one case of chipping or fracture of veneering materials, and one case of crown decementation. No screw or abutment fractures were observed.

Conclusions: According to the results of this retrospective clinical study, cement-retained posterior implant-supported restorations with custom CAD/CAM Atlantis titanium abutments showed high survival rates over a follow-up period of up to 10 years. No statistically significant differences were recorded when comparing implant position, implant diameter, implant length, single- versus multiple-unit restoration and arch.

Purpose: To describe a fully digital workflow for an implant-supported fixed hybrid restoration that involves a double CAD/CAM structure and to highlight the benefits of this type of restoration.

Materials and methods: Using a fully digital workflow, starting from intraoral scans, the necessary steps for producing the final hybrid prosthesis are described. The prosthesis consists of a titanium primary structure and a zirconia secondary structure that is cemented onto the primary structure in the laboratory. A clinical case is presented to illustrate the steps required for prosthetic rehabilitation.

Results: This technique enables the fabrication of clinically valid and passive prostheses using a fully digital workflow.

Conclusion: In just three clinical sessions, a fully digital workflow makes it possible to produce robust implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses, comprising a titanium primary structure and an outer secondary structure made of zirconia. This procedure can be applied to a wide range of cases from simple to extended, including full-arch restorations.