Ten years of experience with the anterior maxillary and mandibular osteoplasty (class IV ridges): a retrospective analysis of implant survival rates

AbstractSeveral authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

Download Full-text

Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Implant Dentistry ◽

10.1186/s40729-021-00346-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Luis Alfredo Díaz-Olivares ◽

Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann ◽

Natalia Martínez-Rodríguez ◽

José María Martínez-González ◽

Juan López-Quiles ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Lateral Approach ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Schneiderian Membrane ◽

Membrane Perforation ◽

Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽

Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽

Sinus Floor ◽

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation

Abstract Background This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival. Material and methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair. Conclusions Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.

Download Full-text

Clinical long-term and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in oral cancer patients

International Journal of Implant Dentistry ◽

10.1186/s40729-021-00373-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eik Schiegnitz ◽

Lena Katharina Müller ◽

Keyvan Sagheb ◽

Lisa Theis ◽

Vahide Cagiran ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Radiation Therapy ◽

Oral Cancer ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Implant Placement ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Oral Cancer Patients

Abstract Background and purpose The aim of this clinical study was to investigate the clinical long-term and patient-reported outcome of dental implants in patients with oral cancer. In addition, analysis of the influence of radiation therapy, timing of implant insertion, and augmentation procedures on implant survival was performed. Material and methods This retrospective study investigated the clinical outcome of 711 dental implants in 164 oral cancer patients, inserted by experienced surgeons of the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated. Results Cumulative 5-year and 10-year implant survival rates for all included implants were 87.3% and 80.0%. Implants placed straight after ablative surgery (primary implant placement) and implants placed after completing the oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement) showed a comparable implant survival (92.5% vs. 89.5%; p = 0.635). Irradiation therapy had no significant influence on implant survival of secondary placed implants (p = 0.929). However, regarding implant site (native bone vs. augmented bone) and radiation therapy (non-irradiated bone vs. irradiated bone), implants inserted in irradiated bone that received augmentation procedures showed a statistically significant lower implant survival (p < 0.001). Patients reported a distinct improvement in OHRQoL. Conclusions Promising long-term survival rates of dental implants in patients after treatment of oral cancer were seen. In addition, patients benefit in form of an improved OHRQoL. However, bone augmentation procedures in irradiated bone may result in an impaired implants’ prognosis.

Download Full-text

Survival Rate of 1008 Short Dental Implants with 21 Months of Average Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9123943 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. 3943

Author(s):

João Caramês ◽

Ana Catarina Pinto ◽

Gonçalo Caramês ◽

Helena Francisco ◽

Joana Fialho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Survival Rates ◽

High Survival ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Posterior Maxilla ◽

Clinical Records

This retrospective study evaluated the survival rate of short, sandblasted acid-etched surfaced implants with 6 and 8 mm lengths with at least 120 days of follow-up. Data concerning patient, implant and surgery characteristics were retrieved from clinical records. Sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA)-surfaced tissue-level 6 mm (TL6) or 8 mm (TL8) implants or bone-level tapered 8 mm (BLT8) implants were used. Absolute and relative frequency distributions were calculated for qualitative variables and mean values and standard deviations for quantitative variables. A Cox regression model was performed to verify whether type, length and/or width influence the implant survival. The cumulative implant survival rate was assessed by time-to-event analyses (Kaplan–Meier estimator). In all, 513 patients with a mean age of 58.00 ± 12.44 years received 1008 dental implants with a mean follow-up of 21.57 ± 10.77 months. Most implants (78.17%) presented a 4.1 mm diameter, and the most frequent indication was a partially edentulous arch (44.15%). The most frequent locations were the posterior mandible (53.97%) and the posterior maxilla (31.55%). No significant differences were found in survival rates between groups of type, length and width of implant with the cumulative rate being 97.7% ± 0.5%. Within the limitations of this study, the evaluated short implants are a predictable option with high survival rates during the follow-up without statistical differences between the appraised types, lengths and widths.

Download Full-text