Patients with oral tumors. Part 1: Prosthetic rehabilitation following tumor resection. Resection prosthetics: surgery, implants and prosthetic treatment

The present study reports on the surgical and prosthodontic rehabilitation of 46 patients, 31 male and 15 female, after resection of oral tumors. The treatment was carried out from 2004 to 2007 at the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Bern, with a follow-up time of 3 to 6 years. The average age at diagnosis was 54 years. 76% of all tumors were squamous cell carcinoma, followed by adenocarcinoma. Resection of the tumors including soft and/or hard tissues was performed in all patients. 80% of them additionally underwent radiotherapy and 40% chemotherapy. A full block resection of the mandible was perfomed in 23 patients, and in 10 patients, the tumor resection resulted in an oronasal communication. 29 patients underwent grafting procedures, mostly consisting of a free fibula flap transplant. To enhance the prosthetic treatment outcome and improve the prosthesis stability, a total of 114 implants were placed. However, 14 implants were not loaded because they failed during the healing period or the patient could not complete the final treatment with the prostheses. The survival rate of the implants reached 84.2% after 4 to 5 years. Many patients were only partially dentate before the tumors were detected, and further teeth had to be extracted in the course of the tumor therapy. Altogether, 31 jaws became or remained edentulous. Implants provide stability and may facilitate the adaptation to the denture, but their survival rate was compromised. Mostly, patients were fitted with removable prostheses with obturators in the maxilla and implant-supported complete dentures with bars in the mandible. Although sequelae of tumor resection are similar in many patients, the individual intermaxillary relations, facial morphology and functional capacity vary significantly. Thus, individual management is required for prosthetic rehabilitation.

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.

Positional guidelines for orthodontic mini-implant placement in the anterior alveolar region: a systematic review

PURPOSE To investigate the adequacy of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the anterior alveolar region (delimited by the first premolars) through a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT (CBCT) to assess anatomical hard tissue parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density. MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers published between 1980 and September 2011. An extensive search strategy was performed that included the key words "computerized (computed) tomography" and "mini-implants." Information was extracted from the eligible articles for three anatomical areas: maxillary anterior buccal, maxillary anterior palatal, and mandibular anterior buccal. Quantitative data obtained for each anatomical variable under study were evaluated qualitatively with a scoring system. RESULTS Of the 790 articles identified by the search, 8 were eligible to be included in the study. The most favorable area for OMI insertion in the anterior maxilla (buccally and palatally) and mandible is between the canine and the first premolar. The best alternative area in the maxilla (buccally) and the mandible is between the lateral incisor and the canine, while in the maxillary palatal area it is between the central incisors or between the lateral incisor and the canine. CONCLUSIONS Although there is considerable heterogeneity among studies, there is a good level of agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI placement in the anterior region among investigations of anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT scans. In this context, the area between the lateral incisor and the first premolar is the most favorable. However, interroot distance seems to be a critical factor that should be evaluated carefully.

Systematic review of the survival rate and incidence of biologic, technical, and esthetic complications of single implant abutments supporting fixed prostheses

Purpose: To assess the 5-year survival rate and number of technical, biologic, and esthetic complications involving implant abutments. Materials and Methods: Electronic (Medline) and hand searches were performed to assess studies on metal and ceramic implant abutments. Relevant data from a previous review were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Failure and complication rates were analyzed, and estimates of 5-year survival proportions were calculated from the relationship between event rate and survival function. Multivariable robust Poisson regression was used to compare abutment characteristics. Results: The search yielded 1,558 titles and 274 abstracts. Twenty-four studies were selected for data analysis. The survival rate for ceramic abutments was 97.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]): 89.6% to 99.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 96.2% to 98.5%) for metal abutments. The overall 5-year rate for technical complications was 11.8% (95% CI: 8.5% to 16.3%), 8.9% (95% CI: 4.3% to 17.7%) for ceramic and 12.0% (95% CI: 8.5% to 16.8%) for metal abutments. Biologic complications occurred with an overall rate of 6.4% (95% CI: 3.3% to 12.0%), 10.4% (95% CI: 1.9% to 46.7%) for ceramic, and 6.1% (95% CI: 3.1% to 12.0%) for metal abutments. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis on single-implant prostheses presents high survival rates of single implants, abutments, and prostheses after 5 years of function. No differences were found for the survival and failure rates of ceramic and metal abutments. No significant differences were found for technical, biologic, and esthetic complications of internally and externally connected abutments.

Improvements in Implant Dentistry over the Last Decade: Comparison of Survival and Complication Rates in Older and Newer Publications

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the survival and complication rates of implant-supported prostheses reported in studies published in the year 2000 and before, to those reported in studies published after the year 2000. Materials and Methods: Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify 139 prospective and retrospective studies on implant-supported prostheses. The included studies were divided in two groups: a group of 31 older studies published in the year 2000 or before, and a group of 108 newer studies published after the year 2000. Survival and complication rates were calculated using Poisson regression models, and multivariable robust Poisson regression was used to formally compare the outcomes of older and newer studies. Results: The 5-year survival rate of implant-supported prostheses was significantly increased in newer studies compared with older studies. The overall survival rate increased from 93.5% to 97.1%. The survival rate for cemented prostheses increased from 95.2% to 97.9%; for screw-retained reconstruction, from 77.6% to 96.8%; for implant-supported single crowns, from 92.6% to 97.2%; and for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), from 93.5% to 96.4%. The incidence of esthetic complications decreased in more recent studies compared with older ones, but the incidence of biologic complications was similar. The results for technical complications were inconsistent. There was a significant reduction in abutment or screw loosening by implant-supported FDPs. On the other hand, the total number of technical complications and the incidence of fracture of the veneering material was significantly increased in the newer studies. To explain the increased rate of complications, minor complications are probably reported in more detail in the newer publications. Conclusions: The results of the present systematic review demonstrated a positive learning curve in implant dentistry, represented in higher survival rates and lower complication rates reported in more recent clinical studies. The incidence of esthetic, biologic, and technical complications, however, is still high. Hence, it is important to identify these complications and their etiology to make implant treatment even more predictable in the future.

Evaluation of a new experimental model to study bone healing after ridge expansion with simultaneous implant placement--a pilot study in minipigs.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the suitability of a minipig model for the study of bone healing and osseointegration of dental implants following bone splitting and expansion of narrow ridges. MATERIAL AND METHODS In four minipigs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted together with removal of the buccal bone plate. Three months later, ridge splitting and expansion was performed with simultaneous placement of three titanium implants per quadrant. On one side of the mandible, the expanded bone gap between the implants was filled with an alloplastic biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) material, while the gap on the other side was left unfilled. A barrier membrane was placed in half of the quadrants. After a healing period of 6 weeks, the animals were sacrificed for histological evaluation. RESULTS In all groups, no bone fractures occurred, no implants were lost, all 24 implants were osseointegrated, and the gap created by bone splitting was filled with new bone, irrespective of whether BCP or a barrier membrane was used. Slight exposure of five implants was observed, but did not lead to implant loss. The level of the most coronal bone-to-implant contact varied without being dependent on the use of BCP or a barrier membrane. In all groups, the BCP particles were not present deep in the bone-filled gap. However, BCP particles were seen at the crestal bone margin, where they were partly integrated in the new bone. CONCLUSIONS This new minipig model holds great promise for studying experimental ridge splitting/expansion. However, efforts must be undertaken to reduce implant exposure and buccal bone resorption.

Early bone apposition to hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium implant surfaces: a histologic and histomorphometric study in minipigs.

OBJECTIVE The first objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of the hydrophilicity on the early phases of osseointegration. The second objective was to compare two hydrophilic implant surfaces with different geometries, surface roughness, and technologies achieving hydrophilicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twelve weeks after extraction, all four quadrants of nine minipigs received three dental implants, alternating between hydrophilic microrough surfaces (INICELL and SLActive) and a conventional hydrophobic microrough surface. After 5, 10, and 15 days of submerged healing, ground sections were prepared and subjected to histologic and histomorphometric analysis. RESULTS The histologic analysis revealed a similar healing pattern among the hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces, with extensive bone formation occurring between day 5 and day 10. With BIC values of greater than 50% after 10 days, all examined surfaces indicated favorable osseointegration at this very early point in healing. At day 15, the mean new bone-to-implant contact (newBIC) of one hydrophilic surface (INICELL; 55.8 ± 14.4%) was slightly greater than that of the hydrophobic microrough surface (40.6 ± 20.2%). At day 10 and day 15, an overall of 21% of the implants had to be excluded from analysis due to inflammations primarily caused by surgical complications. CONCLUSION Substantial bone apposition occurs between day 5 and day 10. The data suggest that the hydrophilic surface can provoke a slight tendency toward increased bone apposition in minipigs after 15 days. A direct comparison of two hydrophilic surfaces with varying geometries is of limited relevance.

Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks.

PURPOSE The aim of the paper is to identify, review, analyze, and summarize available evidence in three areas on the use of cross-sectional imaging, specifically maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in pre- and postoperative dental implant therapy: (1) Available clinical use guidelines, (2) indications and contraindications for use, and (3) assessment of associated radiation dose risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three focused questions were developed to address the aims. A systematic literature review was performed using a PICO-based search strategy based on MeSH key words specific to each focused question of English-language publications indexed in the MEDLINE database retrospectively from October 31, 2012. These results were supplemented by a hand search and gray literature search. RESULTS Twelve publications were identified providing guidelines for the use of cross-sectional radiography, particularly CBCT imaging, for the pre- and/or postoperative assessment of potential dental implant sites. The publications discovered by the PICO strategy (43 articles), hand (12), and gray literature searches (1) for the second focus question regarding indications and contraindications for CBCT use in implant dentistry were either cohort or case-controlled studies. For the third question on the assessment of associated radiation dose risk, a total of 22 articles were included. Publication characteristics and themes were summarized in tabular format. CONCLUSIONS The reported indications for CBCT use in implant dentistry vary from preoperative analysis regarding specific anatomic considerations, site development using grafts, and computer-assisted treatment planning to postoperative evaluation focusing on complications due to damage of neurovascular structures. Effective doses for different CBCT devices exhibit a wide range with the lowest dose being almost 100 times less than the highest dose. Significant dose reduction can be achieved by adjusting operating parameters, including exposure factors and reducing the field of view (FOV) to the actual region of interest.

Horizontal ridge augmentation in conjunction with or prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review.

PURPOSE To systematically review clinical studies examining the survival and success rates of implants in horizontal ridge augmentation, either prior to or in conjunction with implant placement in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature search was undertaken up to September 2012 including clinical studies in English with ≥ 10 consecutively treated patients and a mean follow-up of at least 12 months. Two reviewers screened the pertinent articles and extracted the data. Key words focused on the outcome parameters (implant success, implant survival, horizontal bone gain, and intra- and postoperative complications) in studies utilizing either a simultaneous approach (ridge augmentation performed at the time of implant placement) or a staged approach (ridge augmentation performed prior to implant placement) were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 2 studies in the simultaneous group and 11 studies in the staged group. In the simultaneous group, survival rates of implants were 100% in both studies, with one study also reporting a 100% implant success rate. No data on horizontal bone gain were available. In the staged group, success rates of implants placed in horizontally augmented ridges ranged from 96.8% to 100% (two studies), and survival rates ranged from 93.5% to 100% (five studies). However, follow-up periods differed widely (up to 4.1 years). Mean horizontal bone gain determined at reentry (implant placement) ranged from 3.4 to 5.0 mm with large overall variations (0 to 9.8 mm, five studies). Intraoperative complications were not reported. Postsurgical complications included mainly mucosal dehiscences (five studies), and, occasionally, complete failures of block grafts were described in one study. CONCLUSIONS Staged and simultaneous augmentation procedures in the anterior maxilla are both associated with high implant success and survival rates. The level of evidence, however, is better for the staged approach than for the simultaneous one.

Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review.

PURPOSE The objectives of this systematic review are (1) to quantitatively estimate the esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites, and (2) to evaluate the influence of simultaneous bone augmentation procedures on these outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic and manual searches of the dental literature were performed to collect information on esthetic outcomes based on objective criteria with implants placed after extraction of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. All levels of evidence were accepted (case series studies required a minimum of 5 cases). RESULTS From 1,686 titles, 114 full-text articles were evaluated and 50 records included for data extraction. The included studies reported on single-tooth implants adjacent to natural teeth, with no studies on multiple missing teeth identified (6 randomized controlled trials, 6 cohort studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 33 case series studies). Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found. A meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The available evidence suggests that esthetic outcomes, determined by esthetic indices (predominantly the pink esthetic score) and positional changes of the peri-implant mucosa, may be achieved for single-tooth implants placed after tooth extraction. Immediate (type 1) implant placement, however, is associated with a greater variability in outcomes and a higher frequency of recession of > 1 mm of the midfacial mucosa (eight studies; range 9% to 41% and median 26% of sites, 1 to 3 years after placement) compared to early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement (2 studies; no sites with recession > 1 mm). In two retrospective studies of immediate (type 1) implant placement with bone graft, the facial bone wall was not detectable on cone beam CT in 36% and 57% of sites. These sites had more recession of the midfacial mucosa compared to sites with detectable facial bone. Two studies of early implant placement (types 2 and 3) combined with simultaneous bone augmentation with GBR (contour augmentation) demonstrated a high frequency (above 90%) of facial bone wall visible on CBCT. Recent studies of immediate (type 1) placement imposed specific selection criteria, including thick tissue biotype and an intact facial socket wall, to reduce esthetic risk. There were no specific selection criteria for early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement. CONCLUSIONS Acceptable esthetic outcomes may be achieved with implants placed after extraction of teeth in the maxillary anterior and premolar areas of the dentition. Recession of the midfacial mucosa is a risk with immediate (type 1) placement. Further research is needed to investigate the most suitable biomaterials to reconstruct the facial bone and the relationship between long-term mucosal stability and presence/absence of the facial bone, the thickness of the facial bone, and the position of the facial bone crest.

The effects of anti-infective preventive measures on the occurrence of biologic implant complications and implant loss: a systematic review.

PURPOSE To systematically appraise whether anti-infective protocols are effective in preventing biologic implant complications and implant loss after a mean observation period ≥ 10 years after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS An electronic search of Medline via PubMed and Embase via Ovid databases complemented by manual search was conducted up to October 31, 2012. Studies were included provided that they were published in English, German, French, or Italian, and conducted on ≥ 20 partially and fully edentulous patients with dental implants and regular (≥ 1×/year) supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) over a mean observation period ≥ 10 years. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Authors were contacted if required. Collected data were reported by descriptive methods. RESULTS The initial electronic search resulted in the identification of 994 titles from Medline via PubMed and 531 titles from Embase via Ovid databases, respectively. After elimination of duplicate titles and exclusion of 60 full-text articles, 143 articles were analyzed, resulting in 15 studies eligible for qualitative analysis. The implant survival rate ranged from 85.7% to 99.2% after a mean observation period ≥ 10 years. One comparative study assessed the effects of regular SPT on the occurrence of biologic complications and implant loss. Overall, regular diagnosis and implementation of anti-infective therapeutic protocols were effective in the management of biological complications and prevention of implant loss. Residual probing depths at the end of active periodontal therapy and development of reinfection during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) represented a significant risk for the onset of peri-implantitis and implant loss. Comparative studies indicated that implant survival and success rates were lower in periodontally compromised vs noncompromised patients. CONCLUSIONS In order to achieve high long-term survival and success rates of dental implants and their restorations, enrollment in regular SPT including anti-infective preventive measures should be implemented. Therapy of peri-implant mucositis should be considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Completion of active periodontal therapy should precede implant placement in periodontally compromised patients.

Precision of fit and retention force of cast non-precious-crowns on standard titanium implant-abutment with different design and height

OBJECTIVE The cost-effectiveness of cast nonprecious frameworks has increased their prevalence in cemented implant crowns. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of the design and height of the retentive component of a standard titanium implant abutment on the fit, possible horizontal rotation and retention forces of cast nonprecious alloy crowns prior to cementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two abutment designs were examined: Type A with a 6° taper and 8 antirotation planes (Straumann Tissue-Level RN) and Type B with a 7.5° taper and 1 antirotation plane (SICace implant). Both types were analyzed using 60 crowns: 20 with a full abutment height (6 mm), 20 with a medium abutment height (4 mm), and 20 with a minimal (2.5 mm) abutment height. The marginal and internal fit and the degree of possible rotation were evaluated by using polyvinylsiloxane impressions under a light microscope (magnification of ×50). To measure the retention force, a custom force-measuring device was employed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS one-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni-Holm corrections, Fisher's exact tests, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS Type A exhibited increased marginal gaps (primary end-point: 55 ± 20 μm vs. 138 ± 59 μm, P < 0.001) but less rotation (P < 0.001) than Type B. The internal fit was also better for Type A than for Type B (P < 0.001). The retention force of Type A (2.49 ± 3.2 N) was higher (P = 0.019) than that of Type B (1.27 ± 0.84 N). Reduction in abutment height did not affect the variables observed. CONCLUSION Less-tapered abutments with more antirotation planes provide an increase in the retention force, which confines the horizontal rotation but widens the marginal gaps of the crowns. Thus, casting of nonprecious crowns with Type A abutments may result in clinically unfavorable marginal gaps.