Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy

PURPOSE: To systematically appraise the impact of mechanical/technical risk factors on implant-supported reconstructions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed) database search from 1966 to April 2008 was conducted. The search strategy was a combination of MeSH terms and the key words: design, dental implant(s), risk, prosthodontics, fixed prosthodontics, fixed partial denture(s), fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), fixed reconstruction(s), oral rehabilitation, bridge(s), removable partial denture(s), overdenture(s). Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies with a mean follow-up of at least 4 years were included. The material evaluated in each study had to include cases with/without exposure to the risk factor. RESULTS: From 3,568 articles, 111 were selected for full text analysis. Of the 111 articles, 33 were included for data extraction after grouping the outcomes into 10 risk factors: type of retentive elements supporting overdentures, presence of cantilever extension(s), cemented versus screw-retained FDPs, angled/angulated abutments, bruxism, crown/implant ratio, length of the suprastructure, prosthetic materials, number of implants supporting an FDP, and history of mechanical/technical complications. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a metal framework in overdentures, the presence of cantilever extension(s) > 15 mm and of bruxism, the length of the reconstruction, and a history of repeated complications were associated with increased mechanical/technical complications. The type of retention, the presence of angled abutments, the crown-implant ratio, and the number of implants supporting an FDP were not associated with increased mechanical/technical complications. None of the mechanical/technical risk factors had an impact on implant survival and success rates.

Surface-patterned micromechanical elements by polymer injection molding with hybrid molds

Hybrid molds enable the fabrication of polymeric parts with features of different length scales by injection molding. The resulting polymer microelements combine optical or biological functionalities with designed mechanical properties. Two applications are chosen for illustration of this concept: As a first example, microelements for optical communication via fiber-to-fiber coupling are manufactured by combining two molds to a small mold insert. Both molds are fabricated using lithography and electroplating. As a second example, microcantilevers (μCs) for chemical sensing are surface patterned using a modular mold composed of a laser-machined cavity defining the geometry of the μCs, and an opposite flat tool side which is covered by a patterned polymer foil. Injection molding results in an array of 35 μm-thick μCs with microscale surface topographies. In both cases, when the mold is assembled and closed, reliefs are transferred onto one surface of the molded element whose outlines are defined by the micromold cavity. The main advantage of these hybrid methods lies in the simple integration of optical surface structures and gratings onto the surface of microcomponents with different sizes and orientations. This allows for independent development of functional properties and combinations thereof.