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.

Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses

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.