Axial Implants in Immediate Function for Partial Rehabilitation in the Maxilla and Mandible: A Retrospective Clinical Study Evaluating the Long-Term Outcome (Up to 10 Years)

Evaluation of Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Full Arch Implant Supported Rehabilitation Using the All-on-Four Treatment Concept: An 8-Year Follow-Up Retrospective Study

The "all-on-four" treatment modality is a treatment in which four implants are surgically placed in the completely edentulous jaw in order to restore immediately loaded implant supported fixed restoration. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical, radiological and prosthetic outcomes of immediately loaded maxillary and mandibular four implant supported cross-arch fixed denture prosthesis. A total of 112 edentulous patients who were rehabilitated for their complete maxillary and mandibular edentulism using All-on-four concept between January 2010 to August 2012 in four private dental clinics were included in this study for retrieve their data for marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complication for a period of 8 years of follow-up. A total of 12 patients lost 18 implants, provided a cumulative survival estimate of 97.99% at 8 years in the maxillary arch implants in 8 years of follow-up. After 1 year of follow-up, the mean bone loss with in comparison to baseline at implant level was 1.14 ± 0.86 (mean ± SD), and after 8 years it was 1.63 ± 1.24. In the maxillary arch the marginal bone loss was more when compared to mandibular arch, it showed 1.58 ± 1.22 and 1.89 ± 1.18 for 1 year and 8 years, respectively, for the implants in the maxillary arch. Cumulative implant survival rate recorded in 8 years of follow-up was 97.99%. With a prosthetic survival rate of 78.6%, The prosthetic failure was mainly due to the type of restoration (acrylic wrap-around).

The 10 Year Outcomes of Implants Inserted with Dehiscence or Fenestrations in the Rehabilitation of Completely Edentulous Jaws with the All-on-4 Concept

Background: There is a need for a long-term evidence of implants placed in challenging conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of full-arch rehabilitations with the All-on-4 concept for implants inserted with dehiscence or fenestrations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 123 patients (dehiscence, n = 87 patients; fenestrations, n = 28 patients; both conditions, n = 8 patients), with a total of 192 implants in immediate function presenting dehiscence (n = 150), fenestrations (n = 40), or both conditions (n = 2). Primary outcome measures were cumulative implant survival (CSurR) and success (CSucR) rates. Secondary outcome measures were prosthetic survival, marginal bone loss, and incidence of biological complications. Results: CSurRs were 94.1% (overall), 95.6% (dehiscence), and 88.1% (fenestrations) at 10 years using the patient as the unit of analysis. Smoking affected implant failure significantly (p = 0.019). Implant-level CSurRs and CSucRs at 10 years were 96.2% and 93.5% (overall), 97.2% and 94.6% (dehiscence), and 90.0% and 87.6% (fenestrations), respectively. Average bone resorption at 5 and 10 years was 1.22 mm and 1.53 mm, respectively. Biological complications occurred in 18 patients (n = 18 implants). Conclusions: Implants inserted with dehiscence or fenestrations demonstrate good long-term outcomes with overall high success and survival rates and low average marginal bone resorption, despite an inferior outcome in implants with fenestrations and smoking’s negative effect.

Le Fort I Distraction Osteogenesis of Edentulous Maxillae Combined with Simultaneous Sinus Floor Grafting to Obtain Orthoalveolar Form for Emergence Profile Dental Implant Restorations: Report of Three Patient Treatments Followed for 12 Years

Three edentulous maxillary patients were treated with 9- to 15-mm advances of the maxilla by Le Fort I distraction osteogenesis combined with simultaneous sinus floor autograft placement. The patients were subsequently treated with 8 implants placed in the molar, bicuspid, and canine regions for complete arch ceramo-metal fixed restorations. Anterior emergence profile esthetics was obtained in 2 patients who had high smile lines. Following final restoration, no maxillary relapse was evident, and no implants were lost. Implant bone levels were stable, although 2 implants had 3 mm of bone loss over the 12-year follow-up period.

Early Bone Response to Dual Acid-Etched and Machined Dental Implants Placed in the Posterior Maxilla: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Human Study

PURPOSE

To compare the early bone response to implants with dual acid-etched (DAE) and machined (MA) surface, when placed in the posterior human maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fourteen patients received 2 implants in the posterior maxilla: 1 DAE and 1 MA. After 2 months, the implants were retrieved for histologic/histomorphometric evaluation. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC%), bone density in the threaded area (BDTA%), and the bone density (BD%) were calculated. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to evaluate differences (BIC%, BDTA%, and BD%) between the surfaces.

RESULTS

In the MA implants, a mean (±SD) BIC%, BDTA%, and BD% of 21.76 (±12.79), 28.58 (±16.91), and 21.54 (±11.67), respectively, was reported. In the DAE implants, a mean (±SD) BIC%, BDTA%, and BD% of 37.49 (±29.51), 30.59 (±21.78), and 31.60 (±18.06), respectively, was reported. Although the mean BIC% of DAE implants value was almost double than that of MA implants, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to BIC% (P = 0.198) and with regard to BDTA% (P = 0.778) and BD% (P = 0.124).

CONCLUSIONS

The DAE surface increased the periimplant endosseous healing properties in the native bone of the posterior maxilla.

Immediate Function of Anodically Oxidized Surface Implants (TiUnite™) for Fixed Prosthetic Rehabilitation: Retrospective Study with 10 Years of Follow-Up

Purpose. To report the long-term outcome at 10 years of fixed prosthetic rehabilitation supported by dental implants with anodically oxidized surfaces in immediate function. Materials and Methods. This retrospective cohort study included 75 consecutive patients (44 females and 31 males; 14 bruxers; 21 smokers; 14 systemic compromised), with average age of 60 years, rehabilitated with 264 implants. Outcome measures were implant cumulative survival rates (calculated through life tables) and marginal bone level at 10 years. Results. Twenty-one patients with 66 implants (25%) were lost to follow-up. Six patients lost 12 implants (MkIII implants: n = 9; MkIV implants: n = 3). The overall implant cumulative survival rate at 10 years was 95.2% (maxilla: 95.6%; mandible: 94.7%). The average (standard deviation) marginal bone level at 10 years was 1.96 mm (1.50 mm), with 1.92 mm (1.31 mm) for the maxilla and 2.00 mm (1.71 mm) for the mandible, with a significant difference between nonsmokers (average = 1.60 mm) and smokers (average = 2.95 mm). Conclusions. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that fixed prosthetic rehabilitation supported by implants with anodically oxidized surface in immediate function is a viable and safe treatment option for both jaws.

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL)and post-operative infection for patients being rehabilitated by turned versus anodised-surface implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in November 2015. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. Thirty-eight publications were included. The results suggest a risk ratio of 2·82 (95% CI 1·95-4·06, P < 0·00001) for failure of turned implants, when compared to anodised-surface implants. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when only the studies inserting implants in maxillae or mandibles were pooled. There were no statistically significant effects of turned implants on the MBL (mean difference-MD 0·02, 95%CI -0·16-0·20; P = 0·82) in comparison to anodised implants. The results of a meta-regression considering the follow-up period as a covariate suggested an increase of the MD with the increase in the follow-up time (MD increase 0·012 mm year(-1) ), however, without a statistical significance (P = 0·813). Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta-analysis for the outcome 'post-operative infection' was not performed. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.