Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients' assessments

A review of the recent literature on maxillary overdenture with dental implants

The recent literature on maxillary implant overdenture (IOD) was reviewed in order to clarify its predictability and establish treatment guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, and articles about maxillary IOD written after 1990 were reviewed, focusing on the following items: I. implant survival rate, II. maxillary IOD survival rate, III. number of implants, IV. attachment type, V. follow-up period, VI. implant system, and VII. opposing dentition. The review revealed an implant survival rate of 61-100% and an overdenture survival rate of 72.4-100%. The attachments used included bars, balls, locators, and telescope crowns. The minimum and maximum observation periods were 12 months and 120 months, respectively, and the number of implants used for supporting IOD ranged from 2 to 8. At present, there is no strong evidence to indicate that maxillary IOD is clearly superior for all the items examined. However, the existing data indicate that maxillary IOD has almost the same therapeutic effect as fixed implant superstructures, and is a treatment option that can be actively adopted for patients in whom fixed superstructures cannot be applied for various reasons.

Fixed full-arch maxillary prostheses supported by four versus six implants with a titanium CAD/CAM milled framework: 3-year multicentre RCT

OBJECTIVES

This RCT compares marginal bone level (MBL) change and the clinical parameters after a 3-year function in maxillary implant-supported fixed complete dentures (FCDs) treated with four-implants (4-I) or six-implants (6-I).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Three centres treated 56 patients with 280 implants allocated to the 4-I or 6-I group. Radiographic and clinical examinations were performed. The primary outcome was to investigate MBL change between the groups.

RESULTS

Implant survival rates were 100% and 99% in the 4-I and 6-I groups, respectively. Considering the clustering effects, the MBL change was not significantly different between the groups over the 3-year follow-up. The MBL in the 4-I group was 0.30 ± 0.50 mm at baseline, 0.24 ± 0.31 mm at 1 year and 0.24 ± 0.38 mm at 3 years. In the 6-I group, MBL was 0.14 ± 0.32 mm at baseline, 0.16 ± 0.35 mm at 1 year and 0.12 ± 0.26 mm at 3 years. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups at BL and 3Y. No significant differences between the groups were reported for clinical parameters at each time point as well as in between the visits. The technical and biological complications rates were 1.6% and 6.0%, respectively. Prosthetic complications affected 25 FCDs (47.2%).

CONCLUSION

Marginal bone level change revealed a stable condition in the 3-year period in the two groups. Few technical and biological complications occurred apart from the chipping/fracture of the prosthetic teeth. Four-implant is a feasible solution if the rehabilitation is oriented towards the most cost-effective treatment and towards avoiding bone augmentation procedures. Clinicians have to consider the potential required visits for prosthetic maintenance.

Patient-reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the possible correlations between patient-performed implant hygiene and peri-implant success and disease, as well as patient-reported outcomes, in a community-based cohort.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients (78 implants) from two private general practices were surveyed on their dental implant treatment history, oral hygiene instructions (OHI) received, home hygiene habits and current implant concerns. Their dentition, plaque/calculus scores and clinical implant parameters were examined. Correlations between hygiene habits, risk factors, implant success and peri-implant disease rates were assessed.

RESULTS

Implants had a patient-reported mean time in function of 6.7 years. Floss (74.4%), interdental brushes (IDB) (44.9%) and mouthwash (39.7%) were commonly used, while 7.7% of implants were only cleaned by brushing. Over half (56.4%) of implants fulfilled the success criteria, 61.5% had peri-implant health, 24.4% had mucositis and 7.7% had peri-implantitis. Only brushing (P < 0.001) and detectable plaque/calculus (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with more peri-implant disease. Local prosthetic factors affecting cleaning accessibility significantly reduced implant success (P < 0.001). Patients reported mixed recall of implant OHI, 7.7% of implants were aesthetically unsatisfactory and 9.0% had peri-implant symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of interproximal cleaning and the presence of plaque/calculus were significantly associated with peri-implant disease in a community-based general practice setting, and patients reported mixed recall of OHI.

Self-administered proximal implant-supported hygiene measures and the association to peri-implant conditions

BACKGROUND

Dental plaque biofilm is considered to be the underlying cause of peri-implant diseases. Moreover, it has been corroborated recently the association between the presence of these diseases and deficiently designed implant-supported prostheses. In this regard, professional-administered oral hygiene measures have been suggested to play a dominant role in prevention.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in dental implant patients according to accessibility for self-performed oral hygiene using a 0.5 mm interproximal brush. Periodontal and peri-implant status were assessed based on clinical and radiographic variables to determine the prevalence of peri-implant diseases. In addition, the participants completed a questionnaire on the efficiency and accessibility for self-performed proximal hygiene. Associations of descriptive data were analyzed using the chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U-test. Correlations of the variables with the primary outcome (accessibility) were assessed by means of generalized estimation equations and multilevel logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Based on an a priori power calculation, a total of 50 patients (171 implants) were consecutively recruited. From these, 46% of the prostheses allowed proper access for performing proximal hygiene whereas 54% of the prostheses precluded proper access. Poor access for proximal hygiene displayed tendency towards statistical significance with peri-implant disease (OR = 2.31; P = 0.090), in particular with peri-implant mucositis (OR = 2.43; P = 0.082) when compared to good access. In addition, an association was observed to increased levels of mucosal redness (P = 0.026) and the full-mouth bleeding score (P = 0.018). On the other hand, the presence of peri-implant disease was related to self-reported assessment of oral hygiene measures (P = 0.015) and to patient perception of gingival/mucosal bleeding when performing oral hygiene (P = 0.026). In turn, the diagnosis of peri-implant disease was significantly associated to the quantity and quality of information provided at the time of implant therapy (P = 0.004), including the influence of confounders upon disease occurrence (P = 0.038) CONCLUSIONS: To a certain extent, accessibility for self-performed proximal hygiene is associated to the peri-implant condition. On the other hand, the information received by the patient from the dental professional is essential for self-monitoring of the peri-implant conditions and for alerting to the possible presence of disorders.

Maxillary implant overdenture retained by four unsplinted attachments and opposed by a natural or fixed dentition: One-year clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the implant, prosthesis, and patient-reported outcomes of maxillary removable prostheses retained by 4 implant-supported study abutments after a follow-up period of 1 year in patients with natural teeth or a fixed rehabilitation in the mandible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 patients were included, and all received 4 implants in the upper maxilla. After 12 weeks, the prostheses were connected to the implant with unsplinted attachments. The implant and prosthodontics outcomes were assessed over a follow-up period of 1 year. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) questionnaire and an adaptation of the McGill Denture Satisfaction Instrument using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

A single patient dropped out. At the post-operative 12-week follow-up, 79.3% (95% CI: 64.6%-94.1%) of the patients displayed peri-implant mucosa hyperplasia and 69.0% (95% CI: 52.1%-85.8%) showed pain. After 1 year, 16 implants failed in 10 patients, leading to an implant survival rate of 86.2% (95% CI: 79.0%-92.5%), and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 1.01 ± 0.77 mm (95% CI: 0.85-1.16 mm). The prosthesis survival rate was 96.6% (95% CI: 82.2%-99.9%). The OHIP-20 and VAS scores both improved significantly from baseline to 1 year (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The implant survival rate was lower compared to the literature for the upper maxilla. Despite the encountered problems, PROMs showed significant improvement with the implant overdenture retained by 4 unsplinted implants compared to conventional dentures.

Marginal bone loss around oral implants supporting fixed versus removable prostheses: a systematic review

Aim

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants of fixed (FISP) versus removable implant-supported prosthesis (RISP).

Material and methods

This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of the literature on Web of Science and Ovid (MEDLINE) was conducted in March 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials/quasi-randomized trials, prospective and retrospective studies written in German and English. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and performed an independent data extraction. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the level of evidence of the included studies.

Results

The search resulted in 2577 studies, of which 42 were selected for full-text evaluation. Finally, six studies were included in qualitative analyses, reporting results from 248 participants (81 FISP versus 167 RISP). Five of the included studies were prospective and one study was retrospective. MBL was highest in the first year after implant placement and ranged from 0.17 ± 0.07 mm to 2.1 ± 1.6 mm in FISP and from 0.22 ± 0.55 mm to 2.5 ± 2.7 mm in RISP. After 4 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups; MBL ranged from 0.36 ± 0.22 mm to 1.5 mm in FISP and 0.56 ± 0.45 mm to 1.4 mm in RISP. Of the six included studies, two each were rated as good quality, fair quality, and poor quality.

Conclusion

Fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses seem to have similar long-term outcomes regarding marginal bone loss. However, the evidence provided in this systematic review is limited due to the poor quality of two of the included studies. Future studies with study designs specified to the topic of this review are necessary to provide clear information about marginal bone level alterations in modern implant therapy.

The Influence of Immediately Loaded Basal Implant Treatment on Patient Satisfaction

Background

Improving patient satisfaction and quality of life is of great importance when considering the different prosthetic treatment options for patients with severely resorbed residual alveolar ridges. We aimed to evaluate and compare patients' satisfaction when changing from fixed, removable, and/or conventional implant prostheses to basal implant-supported prostheses.

Methods

Sixty patients with a history of fixed, removable, and/or conventional implant prostheses who received basal implant-supported prostheses (BCS®, IHDE Implant System) were included in this study. Direct interviews were conducted using a four-section questionnaire that covered sociodemographic data, clinical examination, information on previous prostheses, and new implant information. The obtained data were statistically analysed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test and chi-squared test.

Results

Patients were predominantly female, partially edentulous, and aged between 40 and 59 years. Patients' general satisfaction with basal implants was very high (7.7 out of 8). Patients' satisfaction with comfort, mastication, speech, and aesthetics significantly improved with the new basal implants. Males aged between 40 and 59 years and patients who had previously used both fixed and removable prostheses were generally the most satisfied. Although some patients had complaints, they still had high satisfaction and would choose the same treatment modality again.

Conclusions

Basal implant-supported prostheses have a positive impact on oral health and highly increase patients' satisfaction.

"ABCD" Implant Classification: A Comprehensive Philosophy for Treatment Planning in Completely Edentulous Arches

A thorough and precise treatment plan that considers various factors such as age, availability of bone, interarch space for prosthesis design, smile line, lip support, patient desires, and economics is a necessity before implant surgery. Many previous classification systems for treatment planning in edentulous situations tend to focus on only a certain parameter such as esthetics, or available bone volume, or are specifically designed for the maxilla or mandible. The authors have proposed a simplified and universal ABCD classification that uses the 4 vital parameters of age, bone volume, cosmetic display, and degree of resorption to create an algorithm that satisfies the treatment needs of every patient. Various permutations of the 4 parameters can be used to arrive at a solution that streamlines the further phases of the rehabilitative process. The aim of the present article is to provide a science-driven approach to understand a patient's individual needs with careful attention to the interplay of all the aforementioned factors in the decision-making process.

Satisfaction level in dental-phobic patients with implant-supported rehabilitation performed under general anaesthesia: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Phobic patients avoid dental treatment impairing their oral health and making it challenging to offer them prosthetic rehabilitation. This study evaluated patients' experience of implant-supported prosthetic treatment after implantation performed under general anaesthesia due to dental phobia and severe pharyngeal reflexes (SPR). The effect of gender, age and location of implantation on patient satisfaction was tested.

METHODS

Two hundred five patients underwent implantation under general anesthesia both in maxilla and mandible, respectively. After a trans-gingival healing period of 6-8 weeks, fixed implant bridges were inserted. Patients completed oral health impact profile questionnaire (OHIP-14). An additional set of six special questions was also developed and considered. Analysis of the OHIP-14 total score was made using logistics regression. Wald chi-square test was used to analyse the effect of age, gender and location of implantation. Effect sizes were estimated as odds-ratios and associated 95% Wald confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eighty two of 205 patients were included after prosthetic treatment. After start, 38 patients were excluded (4 died and 34 couldn't be reached). OHIP-14-analyses were made by 43 patients (30-90 years). 67% of patients were totally satisfied with the whole implant rehabilitation (scoring 0). Mean of total score was 2.5. Only age affected significantly (p = 0.014) patients satisfaction. The obtained data indicate that younger patients (30-64 years) especially women are less satisfied (4.95) than older patients (0.3) for age group (65-90 years).Special questions' data showed that 94.5% were satisfied with their treatment. 77.3% continued regular check-up after treatment and 96.9% would undergo the same treatment again. 95.5% would recommend implants to a friend of colleague.

CONCLUSION

Gender and location of implantation have no significant influence on patient satisfaction. Younger patients especially women are less satisfied than older patients. Phobic patients are totally satisfied with implant rehabilitation under general anaesthesia which means that this treatment can be considered as a treatment of choice giving these patients the same opportunity like others to improve their oral health and well-being.

The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The number of implants needed to support a maxillary overdenture is still a controversial issue. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture in order to obtain optimal treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival, overdenture longevity and patient satisfaction.

STUDY SELECTION

Pubmed and EMBASE databes were systematically searched and complemented by hand searching from 2000 to 2017. The Prisma statement and a PICOS approach were adopted. All selected articles provided at least two-year follow-up and 10 totally edentulous patients. Survival rate of implants and overdentures were statistically analyzed according to number of implants and according to splitting technique, employing non-parametric Fisher Test for unpaired data. For the pooled analysis of implant failures, the odds ratio between group of 4 splinted implants and group of more than 4 splinted was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles were included. Data analysis of the included studies showed that the survival rate of implants appeared higher in ≥ 4 implants group, whereas the high survival rate of overdentures and patient satisfaction were not significantly influenced by the number of implants.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our analysis indicate that overall the most frequent tendency is to place at least four implants, splinted or unsplinted, in order to ensure a higher survival rate of implants. However, the relationship between overdenture survival, the patient's quality of life, and the number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture has yet to be clarified.

Prosthodontic treatment of a retrognathic edentulous maxilla demonstrating limited interarch distance: 3.5-year results with fixed and removable implant prostheses

The prosthodontic treatment of patients with a retrognathic edentulous maxilla should consider the restoration of the lower facial profile and access for oral hygiene. This clinical report describes prosthodontic treatments of a patient with edentulism who presented with repeated fractures of the denture teeth of a maxillary implant-supported complete fixed dental prosthesis (ICFDP) and a mandibular implant-supported overdenture. Considerable plaque accumulation was noted on the ICFDP, which was replaced with an open palatal design implant-supported overdenture. However, the patient experienced difficulty managing the 2 removable prostheses. The patient's mandible was eventually restored with a milled titanium alloy framework ICFDP with metal occlusal surfaces. This combined approach of fixed and removable prostheses was stable at 3.5-year follow-up appointment, without compromising the patient's oral hygiene or comfort.

Implant Supported Fixed Restorations versus Implant Supported Removable Overdentures: A Systematic Review

AIM:

The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate and compare implant retained fixed restoration versus implant retained over denture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Search was made in 2 databases including PubMed and PubMed Central. Title and abstract were screened to select studies comparing implant retained fixed restorations versus implant retained removable overdentures. Articles which did not follow the inclusion criteria were excluded. Included papers were then read carefully for a second stage filter, this was followed by manual searching of bibliography of selected articles.

RESULTS:

The search resulted in 5 included papers. One study evaluated the masticatory function, while the other 4 evaluated the patient satisfaction. Two of them used Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) as a measurement tool, while the other two used VAS and Categorical Scales (CAT). Stability, ability to chew, ability to clean, ability to speak and esthetics were the main outcomes of the 4 included papers.

CONCLUSION:

Conflicting results was observed between the fixed and removable restorations.

Speech with Maxillary Implant Prostheses: Ratings of Articulation

Speech is often perturbed after placement of maxillary implant-retained prostheses. We tested the hypothesis that the rate of speech errors varies with prosthetic design. Thirty edentulous subjects with mandibular implant prostheses entered two within-subject crossover trials. Subjects wore maxillary fixed prostheses and removable long-bar overdentures (Trial 1), or overdentures with and without palates (Trial 2). Test words from a French language speech battery were recorded after each prosthesis had been worn for two months. The percentages of stops, fricatives, and vowels correctly perceived by lay judges were calculated. Subjects produced a significantly higher percentage of sounds correctly with overdentures than with fixed prostheses. Between-treatment differences were significant for stops and fricatives (p < 0.01), but not for vowels. There were no significant differences in error rates between the two overdentures. In conclusion, maxillary implant overdentures with and without palates enable patients to produce more intelligible speech than fixed prostheses.

Restoration of divergent implants with a 2-piece screw-retained fixed, complete dental implant prostheses

Restoring a severely resorbed maxilla is challenging because of poor bone quality and the resorptive pattern that follows tooth loss. When bone augmentation is not possible, implants are placed in suboptimal positions, making the prosthetic rehabilitation more complex. This report presents the steps used to rehabilitate a severely resorbed maxilla with divergent implants, using an implant-supported 2-piece screw-retained prosthesis.

Dental Implants - Perceiving Patients' Satisfaction in Relation to Clinical and Electromyography Study on Implant Patients

The aim of this study is to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with posterior implants in relation to the clinical success criteria and surface electromyography (sEMG) findings of the masseter and temporalis muscles. Total 42 subjects were investigated. Twenty one subjects with posterior dental implants were interviewed using a questionnaire and the clinical success criteria were determined based on The International Congress of Oral Implantologists. The myofunction of the masticatory muscles were assessed using sEMG (21 subjects) and compared to the control group of subjects without implants (21 subjects). Out of 21 subjects, all were satisfied with the aesthetics of their implant. Twenty of them (95.2%) were satisfied with its function and stability. As for clinical criteria, 100% (50) of the implants were successful with no pain, mobility or exudates. sEMG findings showed that patients have significantly lower (p<0.01) basal or resting median power frequency but with muscle burst. During chewing, control subjects showed faster chewing action. There was no difference in reaction and recovery time of clenching for both groups. In conclusion, the satisfaction of implant patients was high, and which was in relation to the successful clinical success criteria and sEMG findings.

An Alternative Design to Overcome the Problem of Unfavorable Implant Angulations for a Screw-Retained, Implant-Supported Fixed Prosthesis: Two Clinical Reports

Two clinical reports present an alternative design to address the problem of unfavorable implant angulations if a screw-retained prosthesis is desired. The restorations were designed as screw-retained prostheses, except in the area with the unfavorable implant screw emergence. The frameworks in these areas were customized to receive individual cement-retained crowns. This design offers retrievability and helps to minimize complications associated with excess cement without compromising the functional or esthetic outcome.

Long-term Survival Rates of Implants Supporting Overdentures

The study aims were to evaluate survival rates of dental implants in patients wearing maxillary and mandibular overdentures in relation to age, sex, smoking, implant splinting or non-splinting, the maxilla rehabilitated, and number of implants per dental arch. This was a prospective study of patients who were completely edentulous in either mandible or maxilla or both, rehabilitated with implant-retained overdentures, with a follow-up of at least 3 years. 95 patients with 107 overdentures were supported by 360 implants were included in the study. Rehabilitations were monitored over an average of 95 ± 20.3 months (range 36–159). Implant survival in the maxilla was 91.9% and in the mandible 98.6%, representing a statistically significant difference (P &lt; .05). Age, sex and implant splinting did not influence survival rates significantly. Smokers presented a lower survival rate. Implant numbers in the maxilla had a significant influence on survival, 100% for 6 but 85.7% for 4. Three mandibular implants achieved higher survival rates (100%) but with 2 (96.6%) or 4 (99%) survival was lower, although without significant difference. Long-term results suggest that 3-implant mandibular overdentures have an equivalent survival rate to 4-implant overdentures. In the maxilla, results showed that 6 implants may be the best treatment strategy. For smokers with fewer implants retaining the overdentures, there were higher numbers of implant failures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post‐loading implant loss for implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw‐retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).

Material and methods

A systematic literature search for randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3‐ and 5‐year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.

Results

After title, abstract, and full‐text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5‐year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high‐quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

The 2-implant maxillary overdenture: a clinical report

Maxillary implant overdentures present a number of different challenges in comparison to the established and predictable benefits of mandibular implant overdentures. This report highlights the lack of evidence and conflicting findings in the maxillary implant overdenture literature and presents a clinical treatment of a 2-implant and subsequently 1-implant maxillary overdenture with reduced palatal coverage.

Virtual implant planning in the edentulous maxilla: criteria for decision making of prosthesis design

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate prosthetic parameters in the edentulous anterior maxilla for decision making between fixed and removable implant prosthesis using virtual planning software.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

CT- or DVT-scans of 43 patients (mean age 62 ± 8 years) with an edentulous maxilla were analyzed with the NobelGuide software. Implants (≥3.5 mm diameter, ≥10 mm length) were virtually placed in the optimal three-dimensional prosthetic position of all maxillary front teeth. Anatomical and prosthetic landmarks, including the cervical crown point (C-Point), the acrylic flange border (F-Point), and the implant-platform buccal-end (I-Point) were defined in each middle section to determine four measuring parameters: (1) acrylic flange height (FLHeight), (2) mucosal coverage (MucCov), (3) crown-Implant distance (CID) and (4) buccal prosthesis profile (ProsthProfile). Based on these parameters, all patients were assigned to one of three classes: (A) MucCov ≤ 0 mm and ProsthProfile≥45(0) allowing for fixed prosthesis, (B) MucCov = 0-5 mm and/or ProsthProfile = 30(0) -45(0) probably allowing for fixed prosthesis, and (C) MucCov ≥ 5 mm and/or ProsthProfile ≤ 30(0) where removable prosthesis is favorable. Statistical analyses included descriptive methods and non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

Mean values were for FLHeight 10.0 mm, MucCov 5.6 mm, CID 7.4 mm, and ProsthProfile 39.1(0) . Seventy percent of patients fulfilled class C criteria (removable), 21% class B (probably fixed), and 2% class A (fixed), while in 7% (three patients) bone volume was insufficient for implant planning.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed classification and virtual planning procedure simplify the decision-making process regarding type of prosthesis and increase predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. It was demonstrated that in the majority of cases, the space between the prosthetic crown and implant platform had to be filled with prosthetic materials.

Treatment of maxillary jaws with dental implants: guidelines for treatment

Maxillary implant prosthetic treatments may be considerably more difficult to accomplish when compared to the corresponding treatments for patients with edentulous or partially edentulous jaws. The objectives of this article include descriptions of diagnostic records and their impact on treatment success, and criteria clinicians should use to determine whether fixed or removable prostheses are the treatment of choice in any given situation. Specific criteria and clinical guidelines will be identified for use in the treatment planning process. Determination of optimal tooth positions and their relationships to residual ridges or extraction sites are one of the critical factors in determining designs for maxillary implant prostheses. Prosthetic designs (fixed or removable) should be determined by clinicians prior to placing implants; removable prostheses should not be considered to be the "fall-back" treatment option if fixed treatments become unavailable secondary to loss of implants or other clinical complications. Inherent differences between fixed and removable prosthetic treatments are critical for clinicians to understand, as they often include key points for clinicians explaining the features of fixed/removable-implant prostheses to patients. Appreciation of the differences between fixed and removable prostheses is critical for patients and clinicians to make informed decisions.

Fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla: possibilities and clinical outcome

PURPOSE

The aim of the present report was to describe the different treatment approaches available for fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla in the presence of varying hard and soft tissue conditions and to review the clinical outcome of each treatment approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the published data published from 1980 through 2009 was conducted using electronic databases and manual searching to identify the treatment possibilities for the fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla and report their clinical outcomes. The search terms used, in simple or multiple conjunctions, were "fixed rehabilitation," "implants," "edentulous," "fixed dental prosthesis," "implant-supported," and "maxilla."

RESULTS

Several treatment modalities were identified for the fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla, with and without bone augmentation procedures. Regular, tilted, and zygoma implants were identified for treatment modalities that do not require bone augmentation. Sinus floor elevation with the lateral window technique or Le Fort I osteotomy with interpositional bone grafts was identified as a treatment possibility that required bone augmentation procedures. The database initially yielded 230 titles. Of the 230 studies, 42 were finally selected. Although all studies reported the survival rates of the implants, only 20 provided information about the prosthetic outcome. Because of the limited number of studies, at least for the specific treatment modalities, and the heterogeneity in the design of the different studies identified, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis of the data. Except for regular implants placed in native bone, no sufficient long-term clinical studies were found for the other procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for regular implants placed in nonaugmented native bone, the published data provide insufficient evidence about the outcome of other procedures. Until long-term data are available, such procedures should not be considered reliable treatment modalities.

What dentition assures oral function?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between dentition and oral function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of the English literature was undertaken using PubMed and appropriate keywords. Citations were identified and hand sorted to confirm their validity against our inclusion criteria. Four specific areas of oral function were addressed; (I) masticatory function, (II) aesthetics, satisfaction and psychosocial ability, (III) occlusal support and stability and (IV) other functionality including tactile perception, phonetics and taste.

RESULTS

From an initial pool of 1460 citations, 83 articles met the inclusion criteria. These were summarized and relevant data extracted for incorporation into the review. Masticatory efficiency (assessed as comminution efficiency) and masticatory ability (self-reported) are both linked to the number of teeth. A minimum of 20 teeth with nine to 10 pairs of contacting units (including anterior teeth) is associated with adequate efficiency and ability. Tooth numbers below that level yield impaired masticatory efficiency and are likely to result in reduction in reported masticatory ability. Aesthetics and satisfaction are markedly impaired with loss of anterior teeth. Satisfaction is most likely to be achieved in people who also retain a premolar dentition. Further, there is little increase in satisfaction seen in subjects who retained molar teeth. However, there are marked variations in subjective measures of aesthetics and psychosocial comfort between age groups, social classes, cultures, regions and countries. For most people, occlusal support and stability are obtained with three to four functional posterior units with a symmetrical pattern of tooth loss or five to six units with an asymmetrical pattern. There was no relationship between occlusal factors and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Phonetics may be maintained even with large anterior restorations. Patients generally attribute a low significance to phonetics, tactile perception and taste compared with mastication and appearance.

CONCLUSIONS

The World Health Organization goal for the year 2000, namely to maintain a natural dentition of not less than 20 teeth throughout life, is substantiated by the current literature review as this proposed dentition will assure an acceptable level of oral function.

How do patients perceive the benefit of reconstructive dentistry with regard to oral health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Reconstructive dentistry encompasses an enormous range of treatment modalities from the restoration of single teeth to the reconstruction of the whole dentoalveolar complex in edentulous patients. Some treatment modalities have been assessed in terms of quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes and satisfaction

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present investigation was to search and review studies published between 1996 and 2006 in which the impact of the treatment was measured in terms of QoL outcome, ideally, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Patient satisfaction was also accepted as an outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary search engine used was NICB PubMed based on MeSH headings. Hand searching of the cited references in the included papers identified a number of additional studies. The primary focus of the search was to link treatment to QoL outcomes.

RESULTS

The majority of included studies involved the treatment of edentulous patients, particularly the mandible. The preponderance of the studies comparing conventional dentures (CDs) and implant-supported overdentures (IODs) were randomized-controlled trials (N = 18). There was compelling evidence that patients were more satisfied with IODs than CDs. There was strong evidence that OHRQoL can be significantly improved using IODs. Evidence suggesting that one retention system is superior to another needs further clarification. Although high satisfaction ratings have been reported for maxillary implant prostheses, the overall ratings given to the maxillary implant prostheses were not significantly greater than for CDs. There was only sparce information regarding QoL or satisfaction outcomes for the majority of other forms of reconstructive dentistry.

CONCLUSION

Apart from the restoration of the edentulous mandible with IODs or CD, where there is an accumulating body of evidence on the effect of treatment choice, there are many procedures for which there are little or no such data at all. As yet, the entire range of reconstructive treatment has witnessed insufficient investigations relating treatment to its effect on QoL or satisfaction. This is an area that needs to be expanded as a way of quantifying the effect of treatment choices.

Magnetic Retention for Obturators

Prosthetic rehabilitation can be challenging in cases of maxillectomy or developmental defect. This article describes a case in which a magnetically retained, implant-supported denture was used to restore the maxilla following hemi-maxillectomy. Use of the Oral Health Impact Profile before and after treatment showed a marked diminution in the number of adverse impacts 2 weeks post-placement and during review 6 months later.

Immediate loading of dental implants in the edentulous mandible

BACKGROUND

The authors review the literature regarding immediate implant loading in the anterior edentulous mandible, demonstrate the technique they currently use, review preliminary results and present an illustrative case.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors conducted a literature search using PUBMED and Ovid databases. They considered for review 31 articles in English from 1969 to 2003 that pertained to immediate loading of the anterior mandible. The authors developed a technique to provide a bar-supported prosthesis on the day of surgery. They treated five patients and followed them up for at least six months. The preliminary results are presented.

RESULTS

This literature review demonstrated that immediate loading of anterior mandibular implants is an acceptable method, with predictable results. This case series demonstrates the potential for delivering a final bar on the day of surgery, based on the current evidence and clinical application.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The method described provides patients with immediate prosthetic restorations and a decreased treatment time compared with that for the traditional two-stage implant approach.