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.

Virtual implant planning in the edentulous maxilla: criteria for decision making of prosthesis design

OBJECTIVES To evaluate prosthetic parameters in the edentulous anterior maxilla for decision making between fixed and removable implant prosthesis using virtual planning software. MATERIAL AND METHODS CT- or DVT-scans of 43 patients (mean age 62 ± 8 years) with an edentulous maxilla were analyzed with the NobelGuide software. Implants (≥3.5 mm diameter, ≥10 mm length) were virtually placed in the optimal three-dimensional prosthetic position of all maxillary front teeth. Anatomical and prosthetic landmarks, including the cervical crown point (C-Point), the acrylic flange border (F-Point), and the implant-platform buccal-end (I-Point) were defined in each middle section to determine four measuring parameters: (1) acrylic flange height (FLHeight), (2) mucosal coverage (MucCov), (3) crown-Implant distance (CID) and (4) buccal prosthesis profile (ProsthProfile). Based on these parameters, all patients were assigned to one of three classes: (A) MucCov ≤ 0 mm and ProsthProfile≥45(0) allowing for fixed prosthesis, (B) MucCov = 0-5 mm and/or ProsthProfile = 30(0) -45(0) probably allowing for fixed prosthesis, and (C) MucCov ≥ 5 mm and/or ProsthProfile ≤ 30(0) where removable prosthesis is favorable. Statistical analyses included descriptive methods and non-parametric tests. RESULTS Mean values were for FLHeight 10.0 mm, MucCov 5.6 mm, CID 7.4 mm, and ProsthProfile 39.1(0) . Seventy percent of patients fulfilled class C criteria (removable), 21% class B (probably fixed), and 2% class A (fixed), while in 7% (three patients) bone volume was insufficient for implant planning. CONCLUSIONS The proposed classification and virtual planning procedure simplify the decision-making process regarding type of prosthesis and increase predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. It was demonstrated that in the majority of cases, the space between the prosthetic crown and implant platform had to be filled with prosthetic materials.

Mandibular implant overdentures followed for over 10 years: patient compliance and prosthetic maintenance

PURPOSE: The mandibular implant overdenture is a popular treatment modality and is well documented in the literature. Follow-up studies with a long observation period are difficult to perform due to the increasing age of patients. The present data summarize a long-term clinical observation of patients with implant overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1984 and 1997, edentulous patients were consecutively admitted for treatment with an implant overdenture. The dentures were connected to the implants by means of bars or ball anchors. Regular maintenance was provided with at least one or two scheduled visits per year. Recall attendance and reasons for dropout were analyzed based on the specific history of the patient. Denture maintenance service, relining, repair, and fabrication of new dentures were identified, and complications with the retention devices specified separately. RESULTS: In the time period from 1984 to 2008, 147 patients with a total of 314 implants had completed a follow-up period of >10 years. One hundred one patients were still available in 2008, while 46 patients were not reexamined for various reasons. Compliance was high, with a regular recall attendance of >90%. More than 80% of dentures remained in continuous service. Although major prosthetic maintenance was rather low in relation to the long observation period, visits to a dental hygienist and dentist resulted in an annual visit rate of 1.5 and 2.4, respectively. If new dentures became necessary, these were made in student courses, which increased the treatment time and number of appointments needed. Complications with the retention devices consisted mostly of the mounting of new female retainers, the repair of bars, and the changing of ball anchors. The average number of events and the rate of prosthetic service with ball anchors were significantly higher than those with bars. Twenty-two patients changed from ball anchors to bars; 9 patients switched from a clip bar to a rigid U-shaped bar. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term follow-up study demonstrates that implant overdentures are a favorable solution for edentulous patients with regular maintenance. In spite of specific circumstances in an aging population, it is possible to provide long-term care, resulting in a good prognosis and low risk for this treatment modality. For various reasons the dropout rate can be considerable in elderly patients and prosthetic service must be provided regularly.

Prosthetic Rehabilitation, Implant Survival and Quality of Life 2 to 5 Years after Resection of Oral Tumors

Background: After oral tumor resection, structural and functional rehabilitation by means of dental prostheses is complex, and positive treatment outcome is not always predictable. Purpose: The objective of the study was to report on oral rehabilitation and quality of life 2-5 years after resection of malignant oral tumors. Materials and Methods: Data of 46 patients (57 ± 7 years) who underwent oral tumor surgery were available. More than 50% of tumors were classified T3 or T4. Open oro-nasal defects resulted in 12 patients and full mandibulary block resections in 23 patients. Comprehensive planning, implant placement, and prosthetic rehabilitation followed an interdisciplinary protocol. Analysis comprised tumor location, type of prostheses, implant survival, and quality of life. Results: Because of advanced tumor status, resections resulted in marked alteration of the oral anatomy requiring complex treatment procedures. Prosthetic rehabilitation comprised fixed and removable prostheses, with 104 implants placed in 28 patients (60%). Early implant loss was high (13%) and cumulative survival rate of loaded implants was <90% after 5 years. Prosthetic plans had to be modified because of side effects of tumor therapy, complications with implants and tumor recurrence. The majority of patients rated quality of life favorable, but some experienced impaired swallowing, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, appearance, and soreness. Conclusions: Some local effects of tumor therapy could not be significantly improved by prosthetic rehabilitation leading to functional and emotional disability. Many patients had passed away or felt too ill to fill the questionnaires. This case series confirms the complex anatomic alterations after tumor resection and the need for individual treatment approaches especially regarding prosthesis design. In spite of disease-related local and general restrictions, most patients gave a positive assessment of quality of life.

Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results

BACKGROUND: There is evidence for the superiority of two-implant overdentures over complete dentures in the mandible. Various anchorage devices were used to provide stability to overdentures. The aim of the present study was to compare two designs of a rigid bar connecting two mandibular implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Completely edentulous patients received a new denture in the maxilla and an implant-supported overdenture in the mandible. They were randomly allocated to two groups (A or B) with regard to the bar design. A standard U-shaped bar (Dolder bar) was used connecting the two implants in a straight line. For comparison, precision attachments were soldered distal to the bar copings. Group A started the study with the standard bar (S-bar), while group B started with the attachment-bar (A-bar). After 3 months, they had to answer a questionnaire (visual analogue scale [VAS]); then the bar design was changed in both groups. After a period of another 3 months, the patients had to answer the same questions; then they had the choice to keep their preferred bar. Now the study period was extended to another year of observation, and the patients answered again the same questionnaire. In vivo force measurements were carried out with both bar types at the end of the test periods. The prosthetic maintenance service carried out during the 6-month period was recorded for both bar types in both groups. Statistical analysis as performed with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Satisfaction was high in both groups. Group B, who had entered the study with the attachment bar, gave slightly better ratings to this type for four items, while in group A, no differences were found. At the end of the 6-month comparison period, all but one patient wished to continue to wear the attachment bar. Prosthetic service was equal in groups A and B, but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Force patterns of maximum biting were similar in both bar designs, but exhibited significantly higher axial forces in the attachment bar. CONCLUSIONS: Both bar designs provide good retention and functional comfort. High stability appears to be an important factor for the patients' satisfaction and oral comfort. Rigid retention results in a higher force impact and appears to evoke the need for the retightening of occlusal screws, resulting in more maintenance service.

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.

Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this prospective cohort trial was to perform a cost/time analysis for implant-supported single-unit reconstructions in the digital workflow compared to the conventional pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 20 patients were included for rehabilitation with 2 × 20 implant crowns in a crossover study design and treated consecutively each with customized titanium abutments plus CAD/CAM-zirconia-suprastructures (test: digital) and with standardized titanium abutments plus PFM-crowns (control conventional). Starting with prosthetic treatment, analysis was estimated for clinical and laboratory work steps including measure of costs in Swiss Francs (CHF), productivity rates and cost minimization for first-line therapy. Statistical calculations were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS Both protocols worked successfully for all test and control reconstructions. Direct treatment costs were significantly lower for the digital workflow 1815.35 CHF compared to the conventional pathway 2119.65 CHF [P = 0.0004]. For subprocess evaluation, total laboratory costs were calculated as 941.95 CHF for the test group and 1245.65 CHF for the control group, respectively [P = 0.003]. The clinical dental productivity rate amounted to 29.64 CHF/min (digital) and 24.37 CHF/min (conventional) [P = 0.002]. Overall, cost minimization analysis exhibited an 18% cost reduction within the digital process. CONCLUSION The digital workflow was more efficient than the established conventional pathway for implant-supported crowns in this investigation.