Factors influencing fixed retention practices in German-speaking Switzerland : A survey.

AIM Several surveys evaluate different retention approaches among orthodontists, but none exist for general dentists. The primary aim of this survey was to record the preferred fixed retainer designs and retention protocols amongst general dentists and orthodontists in Switzerland. A secondary aim was to investigate whether retention patterns were associated with parameters such as gender, university of graduation, time in practice, and specialist status. METHODS An anonymized questionnaire was distributed to general dentists (n = 401) and orthodontists (n = 398) practicing in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. A total of 768 questionnaires could be delivered, 562 (73.2 %) were returned and evaluated. Descriptive statistics were performed and responses to questions of interest were converted to binary outcomes and analyzed using multiple logistic regression. Any associations between the answers and gender, university of graduation (Swiss or foreign), years in practice, and specialist status (orthodontist/general dentist) were assessed. RESULTS Almost all responding orthodontists (98.0 %) and nearly a third of general dentists (29.6 %) reported bonding fixed retainers regularly. The answers were not associated with the practitioner's gender. The university of graduation and number of years in practice had a moderate impact on the responses. The answers were mostly influenced by specialist status. CONCLUSION Graduation school, years in practice, and specialist status influence retention protocol, and evidence-based guidelines for fixed retention should be issued to minimize these effects. Based on the observation that bonding and maintenance of retainers are also performed by general dentists, these guidelines should be taught in dental school and not during post-graduate training.

Clinical Performance of Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions- A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression. RESULTS From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.

Optimal number of oral implants for fixed reconstructions: a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIM So far there is little evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCT) or systematic reviews on the preferred or best number of implants to be used for the support of a fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla or mandible, and no consensus has been reached. Therefore, we reviewed articles published in the past 30 years that reported on treatment outcomes for implant-supported fixed prostheses, including survival of implants and survival of prostheses after a minimum observation period of 1 year. MATERIAL AND METHODS MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify eligible studies. Short and long-term clinical studies were included with prospective and retrospective study designs to see if relevant information could be obtained on the number of implants related to the prosthetic technique. Articles reporting on implant placement combined with advanced surgical techniques such as sinus floor elevation (SFE) or extensive grafting were excluded. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. RESULTS A primary search was broken down to 222 articles. Out of these, 29 studies comprising 26 datasets fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From all studies, the number of planned and placed implants was available. With two exceptions, no RCTs were found, and these two studies did not compare different numbers of implants per prosthesis. Eight studies were retrospective; all the others were prospective. Fourteen studies calculated cumulative survival rates for 5 and more years. From these data, the average survival rate was between 90% and 100%. The analysis of the selected articles revealed a clear tendency to plan 4 to 6 implants per prosthesis. For supporting a cross-arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla, the variation is slightly greater. CONCLUSIONS In spite of a dispersion of results, similar outcomes are reported with regard to survival and number of implants per jaw. Since the 1990s, it was proven that there is no need to install as many implants as possible in the available jawbone. The overwhelming majority of articles dealing with standard surgical procedures to rehabilitate edentulous jaws uses 4 to 6 implants.

Long-term follow-up of maxillary fixed retention: survival rate and periodontal health.

AIM To assess the long-term success of maxillary fixed retainers, investigate their effect on gingival health, and analyse the survival rate after a mean period of 7 years (minimum 5 years) in retention. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Forty one subjects were included in the study A clinical examination of the upper canine to canine region including gingival index (GI), plaque index, probing depth, and bleeding on probing (BOP) was performed. Intraoral photographs and dental impressions were taken and irregularity index was determined and compared to the values of the immediate post-therapeutic values; failures of retainers were also recorded and analysed. RESULTS The mean observed retention time was 7 years and 5 months. Irregularity index: Changes occurring during retention were statistically different between the lateral incisors bonded to retainers and the canines not bonded to retainers. Only six patients showed changes in irregularity index of the lateral incisors in spite of a retainer in place. Periodontal health: The median value of the GI for all teeth bonded to upper retainers was 1.10 and the median value of the plaque index (PI) was 1.14. PI was not a significant predictor of GI. The overall BOP of the bonded teeth to the retainer for each participant was 22.3 per cent. Failure rate: Twenty-eight out of 41 patients experienced no failure of the upper bonded retainer (68.3 per cent). Detachments were the most frequent incidents. CONCLUSION Although plaque accumulation might be increased in patients with already poor oral hygiene, maxillary bonded retainers caused no significant negative effects on the periodontal health.

Partial lateralization of the nasopalatine nerve at the incisive foramen for ridge augmentation in the anterior maxilla prior to placement of dental implants: a retrospective case series evaluating self-reported data and neurosensory testing

The objective of this study was to assess implant therapy after a staged guided bone regeneration procedure in the anterior maxilla by lateralization of the nasopalatine nerve and vessel bundle. Neurosensory function following augmentative procedures and implant placement, assessed using a standardized questionnaire and clinical examination, were the primary outcome variables measured. This retrospective study included patients with a bone defect in the anterior maxilla in need of horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation prior to dental implant placement. The surgical sites were allowed to heal for at least 6 months before placement of dental implants. All patients received fixed implant-supported restorations and entered into a tightly scheduled maintenance program. In addition to the maintenance program, patients were recalled for a clinical examination and to fill out a questionnaire to assess any changes in the neurosensory function of the nasopalatine nerve at least 6 months after function. Twenty patients were included in the study from February 2001 to December 2010. They received a total of 51 implants after augmentation of the alveolar crest and lateralization of the nasopalatine nerve. The follow-up examination for questionnaire and neurosensory assessment was scheduled after a mean period of 4.18 years of function. None of the patients examined reported any pain, they did not have less or an altered sensation, and they did not experience a "foreign body" feeling in the area of surgery. Overall, 6 patients out of 20 (30%) showed palatal sensibility alterations of the soft tissues in the region of the maxillary canines and incisors resulting in a risk for a neurosensory change of 0.45 mucosal teeth regions per patient after ridge augmentation with lateralization of the nasopalatine nerve. Regeneration of bone defects in the anterior maxilla by horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation and lateralization of the nasopalatine nerve prior to dental implant placement is a predictable surgical technique. Whether or not there were clinically measurable impairments of neurosensory function, the patients did not report them or were not bothered by them.