Prosthetic considerations

Implants have changed prosthodontics more than any other innovation in dentistry. Replacement of lost teeth by a fixed or removable prosthesis is considered to be a restitutio ad similem, while implants may provide a feeling of restitutio ad integrum. Implant prosthodontics means restoring function, aesthetics, and providing technology; biology and technology are combined. Placement of implants is a reconstructive, preprosthetic surgical intervention and is therefore different from most goals in oral surgery that consist of tooth extraction, treating infection and removing pathology from soft or hard tissues. Thus, implants are part of the final prosthetic treatment which encompasses functional, aesthetic and social rehabilitation. The patient's needs and functional status determine the goal of prosthetic treatment. Treatment outcomes in implant prosthodontics are survival of implants and prostheses, impact on physiological and psychological status, oral health-related impact on quality of life, and initial and maintenance costs. A variety of prosthetic solutions are available to restore the partially and completely edentulous jaw and more recently specific methods have been developed such as computer guided planning and CAD-CAM technologies. These should allow more uniform quality and passive fit of prostheses, and simultaneously enables processing of biologically well-accepted materials.

Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence

The objective of this report is to summarize the results on survival and complication rates of different designs of fixed dental prostheses (FDP) published in a series of systematic reviews. Moreover, the various parameters for survival and risk assessment are to be used in attempt to perform treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDP and implant-supported single crowns (SC) with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Meta-analysis of the studies included indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDP of 93.8%, cantilever FDP of 91.4%, solely implant-supported FDP of 95.2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP of 95.5% and implant-supported SC of 94.5% as well as resin-bonded bridges 87.7%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDP, to 80.3% for cantilever FDP, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDP, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDP, to 89.4% for implant-supported SC and to 65% for resin-bonded bridges. When planning prosthetic rehabilitations, conventional end-abutment tooth-supported FDP, solely implant-supported FDP or implant-supported SC should be the first treatment option. Only as a second option, because of reasons such as financial aspects patient-centered preferences or anatomical structures cantilever tooth-supported FDP, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP or resin-bonded bridges should be chosen.

The influence of zero-value subtraction on the performance of two laser fluorescence devices for detecting occlusal caries in vitro

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of zero-value subtraction on the performance of two laser fluorescence (LF) devices developed to detect occlusal caries. METHODS: The authors selected 119 permanent molars. Two examiners assessed three areas (cuspal, middle and cervical) of both mesial and distal portions of the buccal surface and one occlusal site using an LF device and an LF pen. For each tooth, the authors subtracted the value measured in the cuspal, middle and cervical areas in the buccal surface from the value measured in the respective occlusal site. RESULTS: The authors observed differences among the readings for both devices in the cuspal, middle and cervical areas in the buccal surface as well as differences for both devices with and without the zero-value subtraction in the occlusal surface. When the authors did not perform the zero-value subtraction, they found statistically significant differences for sensitivity and accuracy for the LF device. When this was done with the LF pen, specificity increased and sensitivity decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: For the LF device, the zero-value subtraction decreased the sensitivity. For this reason, the authors concluded that clinicians can obtain measures with the LF device effectively without using zero-value subtraction. For the LF pen, however, the absence of the zero-value subtraction changed both the sensitivity and specificity, and so the authors concluded that clinicians should not eliminate this step from the procedure. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When using the LF device, clinicians might not need to perform the zero-value subtraction; however, for the LF pen, clinicians should do so.

Comparison of three patent foramen ovale closure devices in a randomized trial (Amplatzer versus CardioSEAL-STARflex versus Helex occluder)

This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3+/-1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a history of paradoxical embolism. All PFO closures were successful technically. Exchange of devices for others was most frequently required for the Helex occluder (7 of 220) and 2 of 220 in either of the other groups. Three device embolizations in the Helex group were retrieved and replaced successfully. One patient with a Helex occluder developed a transient ischemic attack and recovered without treatment. A hemopericardium in that group was punctured without affecting the device. One tamponade in the Amplatzer group required surgical device explantation. In 8 of 660 patients in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, thrombi resolved after anticoagulation. Sixteen patients (11 in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, 3 in the Amplatzer group, and 2 in the Helex group) had episodes of atrial fibrillation. PFOs were closed completely in 143 of 220 patients (65%) in the Amplatzer group, 116 of 220 patients (52.7%) in the Helex group, and 137 of 220 patients (62.3%) in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group at 30 days with significant differences between the Helex and Amplatzer occluders (p=0.0005) and the Helex and CardioSEAL-STARflex occluders (p=0.0003). PFO closure can be performed safely with each device. In conclusion, the Helex occluder embolized more frequently. Device thrombus formation and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STARflex occluder.

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices for cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock complicates up to 7% of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions and 2.5% of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions, with an associated mortality of 50% to 70%. Primary cardiac pump failure is followed by secondary vital organ hypoperfusion and subsequent activation of various cascade pathways, resulting in a downward spiral leading to multiple organ failure and, ultimately, death. Immediate restoration of cardiac output by means of percutaneous ventricular assist devices restores hemodynamic -stability and is an important advance in the management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and cardiogenic shock. This article reviews available evidence supporting the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices in patients suffering from cardiogenic shock.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices during cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions

Left ventricular assist devices were developed to support the function of a failing left ventricle. Owing to recent technological improvements, ventricular assist devices can be placed by percutaneous implantation techniques, which offer the advantage of fast implantation in the setting of acute left ventricular failure. This article reviews the growing evidence supporting the clinical use of left ventricular assist devices. Specifically, we discuss the use of left ventricular assist devices in patients with cardiogenic shock, in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction without shock, and during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions.

Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review

AIM: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the survival rates of palatal implants, Onplants((R)), miniplates and mini screws. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies on palatal implants, Onplants((R)), miniplates and miniscrews with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 weeks and of at least 10 units per modality having been examined clinically at a follow-up visit. Assessment of studies and data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Reported failures of used devices were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of failure and survival proportions. RESULTS: The search up to January 2009 provided 390 titles and 71 abstracts with full-text analysis of 34 articles, yielding 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis, the failure rate for Onplants((R)) was 17.2% (95% CI: 5.9-35.8%), 10.5% for palatal implants (95% CI: 6.1-18.1%), 16.4% for miniscrews (95% CI: 13.4-20.1%) and 7.3% for miniplates (95% CI: 5.4-9.9%). Miniplates and palatal implants, representing torque-resisting temporary anchorage devices (TADs), when grouped together, showed a 1.92-fold (95% CI: 1.06-2.78) lower clinical failure rate than miniscrews. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence in the literature, palatal implants and miniplates showed comparable survival rates of >or=90% over a period of at least 12 weeks, and yielded superior survival than miniscrews. Palatal implants and miniplates for temporary anchorage provide reliable absolute orthodontic anchorage. If the intended orthodontic treatment would require multiple miniscrew placement to provide adequate anchorage, the reliability of such systems is questionable. For patients who are undergoing extensive orthodontic treatment, force vectors may need to be varied or the roots of the teeth to be moved may need to slide past the anchors. In this context, palatal implants or miniplates should be the TADs of choice.

Cumulative costs for the prosthetic reconstructions and maintenance in young adult patients with birth defects affecting the formation of teeth

OBJECTIVES: To assess retrospectively the cumulative costs for the long-term oral rehabilitation of patients with birth defects affecting the development of teeth. METHODS: Patients with birth defects who had received fixed reconstructions on teeth and/or implants > or =5 years ago were asked to participate in a comprehensive clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation. RESULTS: From the 45 patients included, 18 were cases with a cleft lip and palate, five had amelogenesis/dentinogenesis imperfecta and 22 were cases with hypodontia/oligodontia. The initial costs for the first oral rehabilitation (before the age of 20) had been covered by the Swiss Insurance for Disability. The costs for the initial rehabilitation of the 45 cases amounted to 407,584 CHF (39% for laboratory fees). Linear regression analyses for the initial treatment costs per replaced tooth revealed the formula 731 CHF+(811 CHF x units) on teeth and 3369 CHF+(1183 CHF x units) for reconstructions on implants (P<.001). Fifty-eight percent of the patients with tooth-supported reconstructions remained free from failures/complications (median observation 15.7 years). Forty-seven percent of the patients with implant-supported reconstructions remained free from failures/complications (median observation 8 years). The long-term cumulative treatment costs for implant cases, however, were not statistically significantly different compared with cases reconstructed with tooth-supported fixed reconstructions. Twenty-seven percent of the initial treatment costs were needed to cover supportive periodontal therapy as well as the treatment of technical/biological complications and failures. CONCLUSION: Insurance companies should accept to cover implant-supported reconstructions because there is no need to prepare healthy teeth, fewer tooth units need to be replaced and the cumulative long-term costs seem to be similar compared with cases restored on teeth.

The influence of PVC wrapping on the performance of two laser fluorescence devices on occlusal surfaces in vitro

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wrapping on the performance of two laser fluorescence devices (LF and LFpen) by assessing tooth occlusal surfaces. BACKGROUND DATA: Protection of their tips may influence LF measurements. To date there are no studies evaluating the influence of this protection on the performance of the LFpen on permanent teeth, or comparing it to the original LF device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen permanent molars were assessed by two experienced dentists using the LF and the LFpen devices, both with and without PVC wrapping. The teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extension. RESULTS: The LF values with and without PVC wrapping were significantly different. For both LF devices, the sensitivity and accuracy were lower when the PVC wrapping was used. The specificity was statistically significantly higher for the LFpen with PVC. No difference was found between the areas under the ROC curves with and without PVC wrapping. The ICC showed excellent interexaminer agreement. The Bland and Altman method showed a range between the upper and the lower limits of agreement of 63.4 and 57.8 units for the LF device, and 49.4 and 74.2 for the LFpen device, with and without PVC wrapping, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found an influence of the PVC wrapping on the performance of the LF and LFpen devices. However, since its influence on detection of occlusal caries lesions is considered for, the use of one PVC layer is suggested to avoid cross-contamination in clinical practice.