150 resultados para Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
em BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the survival rates of short-span implant-supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses (ICFDPs) and the incidence of technical and biological complications after an observation period of at least 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting data of at least 5 years on ICFDPs. Five- and 10-year estimates for failure and complication rates were calculated using standard or random-effect Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: The five studies eligible for the meta-analysis yielded an estimated 5- and 10-year ICFDP cumulative survival rate of 94.3% [95 percent confidence interval (95% CI): 84.1-98%] and 88.9% (95% CI: 70.8-96.1%), respectively. Five-year estimates for peri-implantitis were 5.4% (95% CI: 2-14.2%) and 9.4% (95% CI: 3.3-25.4%) at implant and prosthesis levels, respectively. Veneer fracture (5-year estimate: 10.3%; 95% CI: 3.9-26.6%) and screw loosening (5-year estimate: 8.2%; 95% CI: 3.9-17%) represented the most common complications, followed by loss of retention (5-year estimate: 5.7%; 95% CI: 1.9-16.5%) and abutment/screw fracture (5-year estimate: 2.1%; 95% CI: 0.9-5.1%). Implant fracture was rare (5-year estimate: 1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2-8.3%); no framework fracture was reported. Radiographic bone level changes did not yield statistically significant differences either at the prosthesis or at the implant levels when comparing ICFDPs with short-span implant-supported end-abutment fixed dental prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: ICFDPs represent a valid treatment modality; no detrimental effects can be expected on bone levels due to the presence of a cantilever extension per se.
Resumo:
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5- and 10-year survival of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications.
Resumo:
Clinical aspects of reconstruction with fix prosthesis and dental implants in a patient with a history of periodontitis is shown. A successful stabilization and rehabilitation of the periodontally involved dentition can be achieved with tooth-worn crown and bridge reconstructions. From a functional and aesthetic point of view the result may not be satisfying due to mobility and overlength of the teeth and open approximal spaces. Today, dentist and patient have often to weigh if teeth shall be maintained or replaced by dental implants. Thereby, both must be aware of the fact that in complex cases long-term success and aesthetic outcome may be difficult to predict. An intense discussion with the patient on his expectations, invasive treatment, risks with regard to biologic and prosthetic aspects is mandatory and must be based on the best scientific evidence available. The present case report shows different considerations and describes a radical solution which meets the patient's needs and is based on modern CAD-CAM technology.
Resumo:
PURPOSE Clinical studies related to the long-term outcomes with implant-supported reconstructions are still sparse. The aim of this 10-year retrospective study was to assess the rate of mechanical/technical complications and failures with implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs) in a large cohort of partially edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS The comprehensive multidisciplinary examination consisted of a medical/dental history, clinical examination, and a radiographic analysis. Prosthodontic examination evaluated the implant-supported reconstructions for mechanical/technical complications and failures, occlusal analysis, presence/absence of attrition, and location, extension, and retention type. RESULTS Out of three hundred ninety seven fixed reconstructions in three hundred three patients, two hundred sixty eight were SCs and one hundred twenty seven were FDPs. Of these three hundred ninety seven implant-supported reconstructions, 18 had failed, yielding a failure rate of 4.5% and a survival rate of 95.5% after a mean observation period of 10.75 years (range: 8.4-13.5 years). The most frequent complication was ceramic chipping (20.31%) followed by occlusal screw loosening (2.57%) and loss of retention (2.06%). No occlusal screw fracture, one abutment loosening, and two abutment fractures were noted. This resulted in a total mechanical/technical complication rate of 24.7%. The prosthetic success rate over a mean follow-up time of 10.75 years was 70.8%. Generalized attrition and FDPs were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of ceramic fractures when compared with SCs. Cantilever extensions, screw retention, anterior versus posterior, and gender did not influence the chipping rate. CONCLUSIONS After a mean exposure time of 10.75 years, high survival rates for reconstructions supported by Sand-blasted Large-grit Acid-etched implants can be expected. Ceramic chipping was the most frequent complication and was increased in dentitions with attrition and in FDPs compared with SCs.
Resumo:
PURPOSE To identify the influence of fixed prosthesis type on biologic and technical complication rates in the context of screw versus cement retention. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis was conducted to determine which factors, when considered together, influence the complication and failure rates of fixed implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to limit the search. Data were analyzed statistically with simple and multivariate random-effects Poisson regressions. RESULTS Seventy-three articles qualified for inclusion in the study. Screw-retained prostheses showed a tendency toward and significantly more technical complications than cemented prostheses with single crowns and fixed partial prostheses, respectively. Resin chipping and ceramic veneer chipping had high mean event rates, at 10.04 and 8.95 per 100 years, respectively, for full-arch screwed prostheses. For "all fixed prostheses" (prosthesis type not reported or not known), significantly fewer biologic and technical complications were seen with screw retention. Multivariate analysis revealed a significantly greater incidence of technical complications with cemented prostheses. Full-arch prostheses, cantilevered prostheses, and "all fixed prostheses" had significantly higher complication rates than single crowns. A significantly greater incidence of technical and biologic complications was seen with cemented prostheses. CONCLUSION Screw-retained fixed partial prostheses demonstrated a significantly higher rate of technical complications and screw-retained full-arch prostheses demonstrated a notably high rate of veneer chipping. When "all fixed prostheses" were considered, significantly higher rates of technical and biologic complications were seen for cement-retained prostheses. Multivariate Poisson regression analysis failed to show a significant difference between screw- and cement-retained prostheses with respect to the incidence of failure but demonstrated a higher rate of technical and biologic complications for cement-retained prostheses. The incidence of technical complications was more dependent upon prosthesis and retention type than prosthesis or abutment material.
Resumo:
The objective of this analysis was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs), and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications with emphasis on quality of reporting.
Resumo:
The application of implant-borne rehabilitations in residual alveolar ridges may be restricted by various anatomic conditions, as available bone height and characteristics. Here we report the clinical outcome of implants placed in severely resorbed posterior ridges, in addition to various implant-supported treatment modalities. Extra Oral implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) with the intraosseous length of 2.5–5mm were installed in the posterior alveolar ridges. Following the healing period of 4–6 months, implants were exposed and included in the distal extensions of fixed and removable prosthesis. At recall appointments were collected surgical, clinical and radiological variables, including the evidence of adverse effects. An 8-years life table analysis was calculated. The treatment protocol was applied in thirty-five patients, presenting 31 removable and 4 fixed complete implant-supported dentures. A total of 61 Extra Oral implants were placed posterior to the distal implants, at the mean distance of 29.8mm (range 15.6–62.7mm). Three implants failed during the osteointegration phase, yielding an 8-year cumulative success rate of 92.24%. Following the osteointegration period, no major bone loss or other adverse events were found. The clinical results indicated that the Extra Oral implants may be successfully used in addition to the other, longer implants. Thus, a relatively long extension in the posterior region may be employed. With careful preoperative planning, this technique offers a simple and beneficial complementary treatment option for removable and fixed complete dentures.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES The aim of this case series was to introduce a complete digital workflow for the production of monolithic implant crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six patients were treated with implant-supported crowns made of resin nano ceramic (RNC). Starting with an intraoral optical scan (IOS), and following a CAD/CAM process, the monolithic crowns were bonded either to a novel prefabricated titanium abutment base (group A) or to a CAD/CAM-generated individualized titanium abutment (group B) in premolar or molar sites on a soft tissue level dental implant. Economic analyses included clinical and laboratory steps. An esthetic evaluation was performed to compare the two abutment-crown combinations. RESULTS None of the digitally constructed RNC crowns required any clinical adaptation. Overall mean work time calculations revealed obvious differences for group A (65.3 min) compared with group B (86.5 min). Esthetic analysis demonstrated a more favorable outcome for the prefabricated bonding bases. CONCLUSIONS Prefabricated or individualized abutments on monolithic RNC crowns using CAD/CAM technology in a model-free workflow seem to provide a feasible and streamlined treatment approach for single-edentulous space rehabilitation in the posterior region. However, RNC as full-contour material has to be considered experimental, and further large-scale clinical investigations with long-term follow-up observation are necessary.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the hard and soft tissue parameters around implants supporting overdentures and the possible influence of increased periimplant bone density (IPBD) on implant success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 44 dental implants placed in the mandible of 12 patients were included in the study. Implants were divided in 2 groups in relation to the optically detected IPBD. Periimplant clinical and radiographic variables were collected over the period of 5 years. RESULTS: Periimplant clinical and radiographic parameters for all implants did not change significantly throughout the observation period (P > 0.05). Significant differences were observed between implants with and without IPBD for periimplant soft tissue parameters and Periotest values (P < 0.05). Implants with and without IPBD at 5-year control showed mean bone loss of 0.04 ± 0.48 mm and 0.55 ± 0.96 mm, respectively (P = 0.026). All density values decreased throughout the observation period, except maximal values for implants with IPBD that overcome the initial values at the 5-year control. CONCLUSIONS: Implants supporting overdentures were clinically successful over the period of follow-up. IPBD may be related to the maintenance of the periimplant bone level.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE To compare the precision of fit of long-span vs. short-span implant-supported screw-retained fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made from computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/CAM) titanium and veneered with ceramic. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the vertical microgap between long-span and short-span FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS CAD/CAM titanium frameworks for an implant-supported maxillary FDP on implants with a flat platform were fabricated on one single master cast. Group A consisted of six 10-unit FDPs connected to six implants (FDI positions 15, 13, 11, 21, 23, 25) and group B of six 5-unit FDPs (three implants, FDI positions 21, 23, 25). The CAD/CAM system from Biodenta Swiss AG (Berneck, Switzerland) was used for digitizing (laser scanner) the master cast and anatomical CAD of each framework separately. The frameworks were milled (CAM) from a titanium grade V monobloc and veneered with porcelain. Median vertical distance between implant and FDP platforms from the non-tightened implants (one-screw test on implant 25) was calculated from mesial, buccal, and distal scanning electron microscope measurements. RESULTS All measurements showed values <40 μm. Total median vertical microgaps were 23 μm (range 2-38 μm) for group A and 7 μm (4-24 μm) for group B. The difference between the groups was statistically significant at implant 21 (P = 0.002; 97.5% CI -27.3 to -4.9) and insignificant at implant 23 (P = 0.093; -3.9 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS CAD/CAM fabrication including laboratory scanning and porcelain firing was highly precise and reproducible for all long- and short-span FDPs. While all FDPs showed clinically acceptable values, the short-span FDPs were statistically more precise at the 5-unit span distance.
Resumo:
Early implant placement is one of the treatment options after tooth extraction. Implant surgery is performed after a healing period of 4 to 8 weeks and combined with a simultaneous contour augmentation using the guided bone regeneration technique to rebuild stable esthetic facial hard- and soft-tissue contours.
Resumo:
To analyze maintenance service of fixed maxillary prostheses and overdentures based on conventional gold bars or titanium bars and frameworks fabricated with computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) technology.
Resumo:
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes after 2 years with bone level implants placed to restore a single missing teeth that needed simultaneous augmentation and were treated with a transmucosal or submerged approach. METHODS: This study analyzed a subset of patients included in an ongoing prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial (RCT) involving12 centers where patients were to be followed-up to 5 years after loading. Of the 120 implants that were placed in the original study, and randomly assigned to submerged or non-submerged healing, 52 needed simultaneous augmentation (28 women patients and 24 men patients, between 23 and 78 years of age). Twenty-seven of them received implants with submerged healing (AuS), while in 25 patients the implants were inserted with a non-submerged protocol (AuNS). At the 2-year follow-up visit, radiographic crestal bone level changes were recorded as well as soft tissue parameters included Pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP) and clinical attachment level (CAL) at teeth adjacent to the implant site. RESULTS: After 2 years a small amount of bone resorption was found in both groups (0.37 ± 0.49 mm in the AuS group and 0.54 ± 0.76 in the AuNS group; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between AuS Group and AuNS group for PPD (2.5 vs. 2.4 mm), BOP (BOP + sites: 8.8% vs. 11.5%) and CAL (2.8 vs. 2.4 mm) at the 2-year follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: When a single implant is placed in the aesthetic zone in conjunction with bone augmentation for a moderate peri-implant defect, submerged and transmucosal healing determine similar outcome, hence there is no need to submerge an implant in this given clinical situation.