The influence of vertical ridge augmentation techniques on peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this systematic review was to investigate and compare the outcomes of different vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) techniques in relation to peri-implant bone loss (PBL), after at least 12 months of functional loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search was conducted to find all the studies about VRA and measurements of PBL with at least 12 months follow-up. Three pairwise meta-analysis (MA) was performed to completely evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included, of which 11 were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs were available only for guided bone regeneration (GBR), onlay, and inlay techniques. The weighted mean estimate (WME) of PBL value was found to be 1.38 mm (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.10-1.66) after a mean follow-up of 41.0 ± 27.8 months. GBR, Inlay, Onlay, osteodistraction, and SBB represented in weight 32.9%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 7.6%, and 3.9%, respectively; and their WME (95% CI) were 1.06 (0.87-1.26) mm, 1.72 (1.00-2.43) mm, 1.31 (0.87-1.75) mm, 1.81 (0.87-1.75) mm, and 0.66 (0.55-0.77) mm, respectively. Among the secondary outcomes, the analysis was conducted for vertical bone gain, healing complication rate, surgical complication rate, implant survival, and success rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary findings of the meta-analysis, based on the changes between final and baseline values, showed that the peri-implant bone loss could be influenced by the type of intervention but there is a need to evaluate in RCTs the behavior of the peri-implant bone levels after long-term follow-up for all techniques.

Evaluation of the quality of life and the satisfaction level after reconstruction with anterior iliac crest graft and implant-supported fixed prosthesis treatment

PURPOSE

To evaluate oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and satisfaction levels related to treatment in patients who have complete implant treatment and prosthetic rehabilitation after anterior iliac crest grafting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four patients (37 F, 17 M) with a total of 487 implants placed and implant-supported fixed prosthesis treatment completed were included in the study. OHIP-14OHIP-14 scale and satisfaction Likert scale questions were used to evaluate the OHRQoL and the satisfaction levels related to the treatment applied, respectively. To compare the outcomes, the significance test and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used. One-way analyses of variance and Kruskal-Wallis were used to assess the significance of differences among or between the groups.

RESULTS

The quality of life (QoL) was higher, and the mean OHIP-14 scores were lower in women, older patients, and cases with a longer follow-up period, recorded as 13.6 ± 10.3 (p: 0.263), 12.9 ± 11.3 (p: 0.079), and 11.8 ± 9.6 (p: 0.015*), respectively. Moreover, satisfaction levels of the patients related to the treatment were 83.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of severely atrophic jaws with anterior iliac crest for the implant and prosthetic rehabilitation has a positive effect on the QoL. This effect has increased with time, and the satisfaction levels of the patients related to this procedure were high, and their expectations regarding this treatment were met at a high level.

Patient-reported outcomes for bone regenerative procedures

Evidence-based dentistry used for decision-making and assessment of treatment includes three components: evidence from the literature, clinical expertise, and patient expectations. Patient satisfaction embraces affability, availability, and ability and can be examined using questionnaires or structured questions to the patient to evaluate patient perception of the treatment. The questions can be quantified using dichotomous, point, or visual analog scales. This would be a straightforward patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Validated and specific oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) questionnaires such as the oral health impact profile (OHIP), oral impact on daily performance (OIDP), or the dental impact on daily living (DIDL) can be used as PROMs, and these measures are appropriate for population studies, where you can measure changes over time and differences between treatment groups. PROMs have shown to enhance patient engagement when integrated into clinical care. PROMs for bone regenerative procedures are mainly used as secondary outcome and are concentrating on the prosthetic outcome more than the pain, discomfort, anxiety, and cost of the surgical procedures. Surprisingly, most patients are satisfied and willing to have the procedures performed again. Whether this is recall bias or not and how the information's from the dentist and the team influence the patients answers to PROMs questionnaires are discussed. The importance of patient perspectives in bone regeneration procedures is obvious and combined with clinical outcome measures, it increases our ability to provide better care. Studies using PROMs as a primary outcome variable are required.

Posterior jaws rehabilitation with < 7mm-short implants. A review

INTRODUCTION

The results with shorter and shorter implants have been revolutionizing the implantology scenario and are worthy of being well-analyzed and understood. This review aims to add further knowledge about the last 10-years observation period on < 7mm-short implants in the posterior atrophic jaws, better defining the indication of their use.

METHODS

From a Medline database research, systematic reviews, controlled and no- controlled trials (CT, n-CT) with ≥ 3years-follow-ups on <7 mm / ≥ 5mm-short implants (group A), and clinical studies with ≥ 1year-follow-up on 4mm-short implants (group B) were considered. The outcomes, in terms of implant survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications were analyzed according to the duration of follow-ups, implant site (maxilla and mandible), type of prosthesis (single crown or splinted units), vertically impaired or normal sites.

RESULTS

Thirty-four trials (28 for group A and six for group B) were selected. Group A: a mean follow up of 5,8 (3-10) years came out; pre-and post-loading SR range was 94.4- 100% and 89.6-100%, respectively; the range of MBL was 0.12-1.49; 50% of CT found less statistically significant surgical complications in comparison with standard implants (ST) in reconstructed sites, while major prosthetic problems were recorded with short -implants (SH) in 37.5% of CT; in no atrophied sites, a mean SR range of 86.7-100 % vs. 88-100 % and a total bone loss of 2 vs.1.6 for SH vs.ST emerged. Group B: the overall mean follow-up period was 2,3 years, and the pre-and post- SR ranges were 93-100 % and 87.5-100 %, respectively. The MBL range was 0.02- 0.63 mm. All RCT reported significantly fewer surgical complications with SH than with ST in reconstructed mandibles within one year. No prosthetic complications were reported for up to 5 years using no pontics or cantilevers fixed bridges.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar or even better results for SH than ST in terms of post-loading SR and MBL came out for < 7mm/ ≥ 5mm-short implants in atrophic bone regardless of the prosthetic solutions, with less surgical complications but a few more prosthetic problems; the good results up to 5 years for 4mm-short implants in mandibles are associated with splinted and no-risk prosthetic solutions.

Concepts for prevention of complications in implant therapy

The use of dental implants is nowadays a well-accepted and highly predictable treatment modality for restoring the dentition and reestablishing the masticatory function of edentulous and partially edentulous patients. Despite the high predictability and excellent long-term survival rates reported for implant therapy, complications may still occur and can jeopardize both short- and long-term success. The present paper provides an overview on the most important aspects related to the etiology, prevention, and management of complications associated with implant therapy. Data from the literature indicate that a number of factors, such as surgical trauma, implant diameter, type of implant-abutment connection, abutment disconnection and reconnection, presence of microgap, and implant malpositioning, can substantially influence the biologic processes of bone remodeling and biofilm formation, thus increasing the rate of short- and long-term hard- and soft-tissue complications. Other factors, such as excess cement at cement-retained prosthetic restorations, abutment mobility, and infections (e.g. peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) caused by bacterial biofilm, are further causes for complications and failures. More recent evidence also indicates that besides the need for sufficient bone volume surrounding the implant, the presence of an adequate width and thickness of attached mucosa may improve biofilm control and limit crestal bone resorption. Furthermore, emerging evidence points also to the pivotal role of human factors as one of the most important causes of complications in implant dentistry. It can be concluded that clinicians need to consider all biologic and biomechanical factors affecting implant placement and survival, as well as undergo adequate training to improve their surgical skills to control and prevent implant complications. Careful patient selection and control of environmental and systemic factors, such as smoking, diabetes etc., coupled with an accurate surgical and prosthetic planning, enable a better prevention and control of infections.