Clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in the augmented maxillary sinus: A 5-year retrospective study

Background

Factors influencing the success of an implant placed in augmented maxillary sinus need to be recognized. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of various oral health conditions and treatment plan details on the clinical and radiographical outcomes of implants placed in the augmented sinus.

Materials and Methods

In this clinical retrospective study, 39 participants (81 implants) that received dental implants after sinus lifting between January 2005 and July 2016 were evaluated. All the participants were examined by an operator clinically and radiographically in a blinded manner. A checklist including oral health and host condition, implant and prosthesis characteristics, and surgical approach variables was completed for each participant. The effect of these variables on probing depth (PD), marginal bone loss, bone formation in sinus, and patient satisfaction was analyzed using analysis of covariance models. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Survival rates after surgery and restoration placement were 93% and 100%, respectively. PD was found to be significantly higher in restorations with infragingival finish lines over 1.5 mm and in implants with score "2" for gingival index. Moreover, more bone formation was observed in implants with score "0" compared with score "2" for gingival index. In addition, the participants with plaque score "0" reported significantly more satisfaction than the participants with score "2" for plaque index.

Conclusion

Inflamed gingiva was associated with more PD and less peri-implant bone formation in maxillary sinus. In addition, more patient satisfaction was reported by participants that had better plaque control.

Clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in fresh sockets: A five-year retrospective study

Purpose

This retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the implants placed in fresh sockets and investigate the effect of varied oral health conditions and treatment plan details on the clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Materials and methods

Fifty-nine participants (102 implants) were included in this study. Four variables, including mean probing depth (PD), mean marginal bone loss (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction, were significant dependent variables, and the effects of independent variables on these four items were studied. The data were analyzed by the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a statistical software.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 4.75 ± 1.74 years, and the mean MBL was 1.21 ± 0.81 mm. The survival rate was 97 %. There were significant effects of the finish line site, keratinized gingival width, and attached gingival width on PD after adjusting the factors. Also, the implant brand, plaque index, and uncemented prosthesis affected MBL significantly. In addition, significant effects of the surgeon, implant brand, and proximal contact on PES were found.

Conclusion

More PD was found around restorations with a finish line site > 1.5 mm subgingival. Sufficient attached gingiva was a more effective factor on PD than keratinized gingiva. Implants with more plaque scores showed more MBL.

Peri-implant and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns using zirconia abutments in single implant-supported restorations-A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the peri-implant tissue changes and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone using zirconia abutments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed on nine databases. The risk-of-bias was assessed by the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized (RoB 2) and non-randomized (ROBINS-I) clinical trials. Marginal bone level change, soft tissue thickness, bleeding on probing, probing depth, survival rates of implants and crowns, complications, plaque and papilla indexes, and pink esthetic score data were extracted and analyzed. The certainty of evidence was accessed through the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Nine records were included and 7 were used in the meta-analyses. Screw-retained crowns presented greater marginal bone level change (MD -0.04 [-0.08, -0.00] p = 0.04, I²  = 0%) compared to cemented crowns up to 1-year. At 3 and 4 years no significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed. Soft tissue thickness did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The bleeding on probing was higher in cemented group than in screw-retained crowns at 1-year (MD 0.17 [0.08, 0.27] p = 0.0005, I²  = 0%), at medium-term periods (3 and 4 years) no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for this outcome. Probing depth, survival rates of implants and crowns, complications, and plaque index, as well as esthetic analysis using the papilla index and pink esthetic score did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) between both retention systems at short and medium-term periods.

CONCLUSION

The connection system considering zirconia abutments presented no influence on peri-implant parameters and esthetics evaluation for medium-term periods (3 and 4 years).