Clinical Performance of Implant Crown Retained Removable Partial Dentures for Mandibular Edentulism-A Retrospective Study

Implant-assisted removable partial dentures: Part II. a systematic review of the effects of implant position on the biomechanical behavior

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of implant placement sites on the biomechanical behavior of implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs) using finite element analysis (FEA).

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently conducted manual searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for articles investigating implant location in IARPDs using FEA, according to the 2020 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Studies published in English up to August 1, 2022, were included in the analysis based on the critical question.

RESULTS

Seven articles meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed. Six studies investigated mandibular Kennedy Class I and one study investigated mandibular Kennedy Class II. Implant placement reduced the displacement and stress distribution of the IARPD components, including dental implants and abutment teeth, regardless of the Kennedy Class type and dental implant placement site. Most of the included studies showed that, based on the biomechanical behavior, the molar region, rather than the premolar region, is the preferred implant placement site. None of the selected studies investigated the maxillary Kennedy Class I and II.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the FEA regarding mandibular IARPDs, we concluded that implant placement in both the premolar and molar regions improves the biomechanical behaviors of IARPD components, regardless of the Kennedy Class. Implant placement in the molar region results in more suitable biomechanical behaviors compared with implant placement in the premolar region in Kennedy Class I. No conclusion was reached for Kennedy Class II due to the lack of relevant studies.

Implant-assisted removable partial dentures: Part I. a scoping review of clinical applications

PURPOSE

This scoping review aimed to systematically map research regarding implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs), and identify existing gaps in knowledge.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently conducted a search of the MEDLINE-PubMed and Scopus databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review and included articles published in English up to August 31, 2022, including human studies, reviews, and in vitro studies. Expert opinions, animal studies, and clinical studies involving complete overdentures were excluded, and ten aspects for establishing the treatment strategy for IARPDs were examined.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve articles were chosen. There were two treatment modalities: IARPDs retained by implant- and tooth-supported surveyed single crowns (SCs) or fixed partial dentures (FPDs). In IARPDs retained by tooth-supported surveyed SCs or FPDs, the survival rate of dental implants for IARPDs was relatively higher with a wide range of marginal bone loss and many complications, but with improved functional performance, oral health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. There were limited data on survival or success rates and designs of IARPDs, attachment selections, length and diameter, inclination, placement sites, and loading protocols of implants, regardless of prosthetic types. There was limited information on maxillary IARPDs except for survival rates of implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Although IARPDs could become a useful treatment strategy, there is limited scientific consensus with gaps in knowledge about their use. Additional well-designed clinical and in vitro studies are necessary to scientifically establish IARPDs as definitive prostheses in implant dentistry.

Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid in Relieving Post-implantation Pain: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Many patients suffer from some degree of pain following the surgical procedures of dental implantation. The fear of pain may be one reason for postponing such prosthodontic treatments. Many procedures have been suggested to control post-implantation pain. This trial evaluated the effectiveness of using hyaluronic acid (HA) during dental implantation on patients’ perceived pain during the postsurgical soft-tissue healing period.

Methodology

A split-mouth randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. The trial sample consisted of 22 dental implants in 11 patients (five males and six females). Patients were selected from those attending the Department of Oral Medicine at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus between February 2021 and May 2022. The implants were performed in similar bone quality and density for each patient as the implants were inserted in the same jaw on both sides to ensure the same physiological conditions. The study sample was divided into two groups. The first group (the experimental group) consisted of 11 implants in which the implant site was drilled, following which HA was placed inside the implant site and on the surrounding bone before the flap was returned and sutured. The second group (the control group) comprised 11 implants following the conventional procedure without applying any material to the implant socket. The main outcome measure was pain perception which was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were asked to record their perceived pain on the first, third, and tenth days. Two-sample t-tests were used to detect significant differences.

Results

There were statistically significant differences in the mean pain intensity between the experimental and control groups on the first, third, and tenth days (p < 0.05). The mean values of perceived pain in the control group were 5.68, 1.72, and 0.56 on the first, third, and tenth days, respectively. In comparison, the mean values of perceived pain in the experimental group were 4.52, 1.14, and 0.18 on the first, third, and tenth days, respectively. The maximum perceived pain in the control group was 7.5 on the first day following implantation, whereas the maximum value recorded in the experimental group was 6.5. At the third assessment time (i.e., 10 days following the surgical intervention), the mean values were in the very mild category of pain intensity.

Conclusions

This study showed that applying HA in the implant cavity and on the surrounding bone effectively reduced pain after dental implant surgery in comparison with the control group. Patients had lower mean pain scores at one, three, and ten days following surgery compared to the conventional method. HA is suggested to be an adjunctive method to control postsurgical pain after dental implantation.

The Concluding Editorial Regarding the Special Issue “Latest Advances in Prosthodontics: Improving Patient-Centered Outcomes”

According to the current holistic concept of health, all patients require a thorough assessment of their physical, psychological, and emotional well-being, not merely a confirmation or classification of disease [...]

Dental implant restoration for dentition defects improves clinical efficacy, masticatory function and patient comfort

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to demonstrate if dental implant restoration can improve the clinical efficacy, masticatory function and comfort in patients with dentition defects.

METHODS

The clinical data of 90 patients with single tooth loss treated in Yuyao People's Hospital of Zhejiang Province from May 2018 to May 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were enrolled and divided into two groups. The control group (CG; n=45) was intervened by traditional fixed partial denture (FPD) restoration, and the observation group (OG; n=45) was treated with dental implant restoration. The clinical efficacy was evaluated, and amelioration of tooth-related indexes and clinical indicators 2 years after treatment were observed. The improvement of masticatory function and comfort scores were compared. The adverse reactions during treatment were recorded, and patients' satisfaction with the treatment was calculated. Logistic regression was performed to assess the independent risk factors for inefficacy of the treatments.

RESULTS

After treatment, the OG presented with lower gingival index, plaque index and sulcus bleeding index.

Survival Rates and Clinical Outcomes of Implant Overdentures in Old and Medically Compromised Patients

Studies on the survival rate of implant overdentures in medically compromised patients are limited because most studies exclude patients with systemic diseases affecting implant prognosis. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the survival rate and clinical outcomes of dental implants used for overdentures in medically compromised patients. A total of 20 patients (9 men, 11 women; mean age: 67.55 ± 6.84 years, range: 53-81 years) were included. Fourteen patients had more than two systemic diseases, and nine patients had more than three systemic diseases. The mean follow-up period was 39.05 months. Of the 60 implants, 2 failed, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.6%. No statistical differences were found in implant survival rates according to sex, age, implant diameter, restored arch, or opposing dentition (p > 0.05). A significant difference in mean marginal bone loss (MBL) was noted for restoring the arch (p = 0.022) and opposing dentition (p = 0.036). Implants placed in the mandible and with opposing removable partial dentures and complete dentures showed lower mean MBL. No significant differences in implant MBL were observed in terms of age, sex, or implant diameter (p > 0.05). Favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from implant overdentures using two or four implants in edentulous patients with systemic diseases by ensuring that the patients have a sufficient healing period and regular checkups.

Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseointegration and MBL around non-submerged dental implants. We measured the changes between the MBL in the mesial and distal sites immediately after prosthetic delivery and after one year. The mean MBL and its changes in the IOD group were significantly higher. The mean percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL and its changes in males were significantly higher in the IOD group. The percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL in the lower site in the IOD group was significantly higher. Regarding MBL, the location of the implant was the only significant factor in the IOD group, while gender was the only significant predictor in the FP group. Regarding the r-BIIC percentage, gender was a significant factor in the FP group. We concluded that non-submerged dental implants restored with FPs and IODs maintained stable bone remodeling one year after prosthetic delivery.

Clinical and radiographic evaluations of implants as surveyed crowns for Class I removable partial dentures: A retrospective study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants in IC-RPDs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy implants were placed and used as surveyed crowns in 30 RPDs. The survival rates and MBL around implants based on multiple variables, e.g., position, sex, age, opposing dentitions, splinting, type of used retainer, and first year bone loss, were analyzed. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding functional/esthetic improvement after IC-RPD treatment, and complications were also inspected.

RESULTS

The 100% implant survival rates were observed, and 60 of those implants showed MBL levels less than 1.5 mm. No significant differences in MBL of implants were observed between implant positions (maxilla vs. mandible; P = .341) and type of used retainers (P = .630). The implant MBL of greater than 0.5 mm at 1 year showed significantly higher MBL after that (P < .001). Splinted implant surveyed crowns showed lower MBL in the maxilla (splinted vs. non-splinted; P = .037). There were significant esthetic/functional improvements observed after treatment, but there were no significant differences in esthetic results based on implant position (maxilla vs. mandible). Implants in mandible showed significantly greater improvement in function than implants in the maxilla (P = .002). Prosthetic complication of IC-RPD was not observed frequently. However, 2 abutment teeth among 60 were failed. The bone loss of abutment teeth was lower than MBL of implants in IC-RPDs (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Class I RPD connected to residual teeth and strategically positioned implants as surveyed crowns can be a viable treatment modality.