Retrievability of implant-supported crowns when using three different cements: a controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to analyze the removal of implant-supported crowns retained by three different cements using an air-accelerated crown remover and to evaluate the patients' response to the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS This controlled clinical trial was conducted with 21 patients (10 women, 11 men; mean age: 51 ± 10.2 years) who had received a total of 74 implants (all placed in the posterior zone of the mandible). Four months after implant surgery, the crowns were cemented on standard titanium abutments of different heights. Three different cements (two temporary: Harvard TEMP and Improv; and one definitive: Durelon) were used and randomly assigned to the patients. Eight months later, one blinded investigator removed all crowns. The number of activations of the instrument (CORONAflex, KaVo) required for crown removal was recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire retrospectively to determine the impact of the procedure and to gauge their subjective perception. A linear regression model and descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS All crowns could be retrieved without any technical complications or damage. Both abutment height (P = .019) and cement type (P = .004) had a significant effect on the number of activations, but the type of cement was more important. An increased total number of activations had no or only a weak correlation to the patients' perception of concussion, noise, pain, and unwillingness to use the device. CONCLUSIONS Cemented implant crowns can be removed, and the application of an air-accelerated device is a practicable method. A type of cement with appropriate retention force has to be selected. The impact on the patients' subjective perception should be taken into account.

Peri-implant bone loss of dental implants with platform-switching design after 5 years of loading: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE The aim of this cross-sectional study was to estimate bone loss of implants with platform-switching design and analyze possible risk indicators after 5 years of loading in a multi-centered private practice network. METHOD AND MATERIALS Peri-implant bone loss was measured radiographically as the distance from the implant shoulder to the mesial and distal alveolar crest, respectively. Risk factor analysis for marginal bone loss included type of implant prosthetic treatment concept and dental status of the opposite arch. RESULTS A total of 316 implants in 98 study patients after 5 years of loading were examined. The overall mean value for radiographic bone loss was 1.02 mm (SD ± 1.25 mm, 95% CI 0.90- 1.14). Correlation analyses indicated a strong association of peri-implant bone loss > 2 mm for removable implant-retained prostheses with an odds ratio of 53.8. CONCLUSION The 5-year-results of the study show clinically acceptable values of mean bone loss after 5 years of loading. Implant-supported removable prostheses seem to be a strong co-factor for extensive bone level changes compared to fixed reconstructions. However, these results have to be considered for evaluation of the included special cohort under private dental office conditions.

Tooth loss, chewing efficiency and cognitive impairment in geriatric patients.

BACKGROUND Patients with dementia have poorer oral health and fewer teeth than their peers without cognitive impairment. OBJECTIVE The hypothesis of this study is that the number of natural teeth and the chewing efficiency are associated with cognitive functioning. METHODS This cross-sectional study included 29 patients diagnosed with dementia aged 75 years or older and 22 controls who were either cognitively normal (n = 19) or with mild cognitive impairment (n = 3). Neuropsychological, nutritional and dental assessments were performed. The chewing efficiency was evaluated with a two-colour mixing test. RESULTS Demented patients and controls presented with a mean of 4.9 and 6.5 teeth, respectively (n.s.). The number of natural teeth was not associated with dementia (p = 0.553). Same results were found for age (p = 0.746) and sex (p = 0.901). The chewing efficiency by visual inspection proved worse in participants with dementia than in the controls (p < 0.011) and explained 9.3% of the variance in the diagnosis of dementia. Neither dental state nor chewing efficiency was related to the nutritional state. CONCLUSION Chewing efficiency seems stronger associated with cognitive impairment than the number of teeth. Hence, in a more holistic approach for the geriatric assessment, the dental examination may be complemented by a chewing efficiency test.