Quality standards for bone conduction implants.

CONCLUSION Bone conduction implants are useful in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss for whom conventional surgery or hearing aids are no longer an option. They may also be used in patients affected by single-sided deafness. OBJECTIVES To establish a consensus on the quality standards required for centers willing to create a bone conduction implant program. METHOD To ensure a consistently high level of service and to provide patients with the best possible solution the members of the HEARRING network have established a set of quality standards for bone conduction implants. These standards constitute a realistic minimum attainable by all implant clinics and should be employed alongside current best practice guidelines. RESULTS Fifteen items are thoroughly analyzed. They include team structure, accommodation and clinical facilities, selection criteria, evaluation process, complete preoperative and surgical information, postoperative fitting and assessment, follow-up, device failure, clinical management, transfer of care and patient complaints.

Stiffness, Strength, and Failure Modes of Implant-Supported Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Crowns: Influence of Titanium and Zirconia Abutments

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to evaluate stiffness, strength, and failure modes of monolithic crowns produced using computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture, which are connected to diverse titanium and zirconia abutments on an implant system with tapered, internal connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns were constructed and loaded on bone level-type implants in a universal testing machine under quasistatic conditions according to DIN ISO 14801. Comparative analysis included a 2 × 2 format: prefabricated titanium abutments using proprietary bonding bases (group A) vs nonproprietary bonding bases (group B), and customized zirconia abutments using proprietary Straumann CARES (group C) vs nonproprietary Astra Atlantis (group D) material. Stiffness and strength were assessed and calculated statistically with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Cross-sections of each tested group were inspected microscopically. RESULTS Loaded LS2 crowns, implants, and abutment screws in all tested specimens (groups A, B, C, and D) did not show any visible fractures. For an analysis of titanium abutments (groups A and B), stiffness and strength showed equally high stability. In contrast, proprietary and nonproprietary customized zirconia abutments exhibited statistically significant differences with a mean strength of 366 N (Astra) and 541 N (CARES) (P < .05); as well as a mean stiffness of 884 N/mm (Astra) and 1,751 N/mm (CARES) (P < .05), respectively. Microscopic cross-sections revealed cracks in all zirconia abutments (groups C and D) below the implant shoulder. CONCLUSION Depending on the abutment design, prefabricated titanium abutment and proprietary customized zirconia implant-abutment connections in conjunction with monolithic LS2 crowns had the best results in this laboratory investigation.

Implant therapy in a surgical specialty clinic: an analysis of patients, indications, surgical procedures, risk factors, and early failures

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to analyze the patient pool referred to a specialty clinic for implant surgery over a 3-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients receiving dental implants between 2008 and 2010 at the Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology were included in the study. As primary outcome parameters, the patients were analyzed according to the following criteria: age, sex, systemic diseases, and indication for therapy. For the inserted implants, the type of surgical procedure, the types of implants placed, postsurgical complications, and early failures were recorded. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify possible local and systemic risk factors for complications. As a secondary outcome, data regarding demographics and surgical procedures were compared with the findings of a historic study group (2002 to 2004). RESULTS A total of 1,568 patients (792 women and 776 men; mean age, 52.6 years) received 2,279 implants. The most frequent indication was a single-tooth gap (52.8%). Augmentative procedures were performed in 60% of the cases. Tissue-level implants (72.1%) were more frequently used than bone-level implants (27.9%). Regarding dimensions of the implants, a diameter of 4.1 mm (59.7%) and a length of 10 mm (55.0%) were most often utilized. An early failure rate of 0.6% was recorded (13 implants). Patients were older and received more implants in the maxilla, and the complexity of surgical interventions had increased when compared to the patient pool of 2002 to 2004. CONCLUSION Implant therapy performed in a surgical specialty clinic utilizing strict patient selection and evidence-based surgical protocols showed a very low early failure rate of 0.6%.

Indications and Frequency for the Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Implant Treatment Planning in a Specialty Clinic

PURPOSE To analyze the indications and frequency for three-dimensional (3D) imaging for implant treatment planning in a pool of patients referred to a specialty clinic over a 3-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients who received dental implants between 2008 and 2010 at the Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology at the University of Bern were included in the study. The influence of age, gender, and time of treatment (2008 to 2010) on the frequency of use of two-dimensional (2D) radiographic imaging modalities alone or in combination with 3D cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans was analyzed. Furthermore, the influence of the indication, location, and need for bone augmentation on the frequency of use of 2D imaging modalities alone or in combination with CBCT was evaluated. RESULTS In all, 1,568 patients (792 women and 776 men) received 2,279 implants. Overall, 633 patients (40.4%) were analyzed with 2D imaging procedures alone. CBCT was performed in 935 patients (59.6%). There was a statistically significant increase in CBCT between 2008 and 2010. Patients older than 55 years received a CBCT scan in addition to 2D radiographic imaging statistically significantly more often. Additional 3D imaging was most frequently performed in the posterior maxilla, whereas 2D radiographs alone exhibited the highest frequency in the anterior mandible. The combination of 2D with CBCT was used predominantly for implant placement with simultaneous or staged guided bone regeneration or sinus elevation. CONCLUSION Based on these findings from a specialty clinic, the use of additional CBCT imaging for implant treatment planning is influenced by the indication, location, local anatomy (including the need for bone augmentation), and the age of the patient.