scholarly journals Mini-dental implants for definitive prosthesis retention — A synopsis of the current evidence

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Wang ◽  
Kok Sen Ho ◽  
Tee Khin Neo ◽  
Ansgar C. Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Prosthesis Retention ◽  
Tissue Characteristics

Background: This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview of the comparison between mini-dental implants (MDI) and conventional dental implants for definitive prosthesis retention. In addition, recommendations are made on whether the use of reduced diameter dental implants is more appropriate. Method: A literature review was conducted via electronic search addressing the following topics: (1) osseointegration, (2) peri-implant soft tissue characteristics, (3) biomechanics, (4) implant survival and (5) implant success. Conclusion: The procedure for dental implant prosthetic rehabilitation should preferentially include conventional dental implants (i.e. [Formula: see text][Formula: see text]mm fixture diameter). Small (3–3.25[Formula: see text]mm) and narrow (3.3–3.5[Formula: see text]mm) dental implants should primarily be used in non-load-bearing regions. MDI ([Formula: see text][Formula: see text]mm) should be considered to retain definitive prosthesis, only for reasons of anatomy or patient-centred preferences and as a last resort. If MDI are to be used, patients should be made aware of the lack of long-term, high-quality evidence as a part of the informed consent process and that most of the prospective data available pertain to MDI retaining complete dentures.

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

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.

scholarly journals Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameh Attia ◽  
Clara Narberhaus ◽  
Heidrun Schaaf ◽  
Philipp Streckbein ◽  
Jörn Pons-Kühnemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Success Probability ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Atrophic Maxilla ◽  
Significant Difference

The atrophic maxilla often requires bone augmentation before implant placement to ensure long-term implant success. A previous prospective clinical trial examined the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) during maxillary augmentation. The short-term results showed no positive effect of PRP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the same patient collective of the previous study regarding the PRP long-term impact on the survival and success of dental implants. Fifty-three patients from the previous study diagnosed with maxillary atrophy and augmented with autologous bone grafts from the iliac crest and dental implants, were included in this study. Treatment was carried out on both sides in 34 patients with a split-mouth-design in which one randomly chosen side was treated additionally with PRP, the other side was the control-side. Nineteen patients were treated only on one side and were assigned to the PRP—or the control group randomly. Implant follow-up of the patients from the previous study was performed after an average time of 13 years. Implant success was evaluated using two different success criteria. Thitry-seven patients (25 women and 12 men) were investigated in this study. Seventeen patients (12 female, 5 male) were included in the PRP group, while 20 patients (13 female, 7 male) participated in the control group. A total of 210 implants were inserted. Of these, 102 implants (48.57%) were placed in the PRP group and 108 implants (51.42%) in the control group. Out of 102 investigated implants in the PRP group, 6 were removed (survival rate 94.1%). While two of the 108 implants in the control group were loss (survival rate 98.1%). In the PRP group, the cumulative probability of survival after 15.1 years was 94.1% and in the control group, was 98.1%, with no significant difference between the two groups. Higher significant difference for the control group was found in the cumulative success probability using Albrektson criteria (p = 0.05). Positive impact of PRP on long-term implant survival and success could not be found.

scholarly journals Long-Term Clinical Behavior and Complications of Intentionally Tilted Dental Implants Compared with Straight Implants Supporting Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Biology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 509
Author(s):  
Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann ◽  
Ignacio García-Gil ◽  
Patricia Pedregal ◽  
Jesús Peláez ◽  
Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Manual Search

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical behavior of straight implants in comparison with intentionally tilted dental implants (ITDI) supporting fixed restorations in partial or total edentulous arches, analyzing implant survival and success rates, complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) after >5 years of function. An electronic search was conducted in five electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) supplemented by a manual search. The electronic and manual search identified 1853 articles, of which 8 articles were selected for analysis. Out of a total of 3987 dental implants, 2036 were axial dental implants and 1951 tilted. Similar results were found in implant survival or overall implant success rates. Moreover, no statistically significant differences were found in MBL (p = 0.369; MD 0.116 mm (−0.137; 0.369) 95% CI) The prosthodontic/biological complications reported in the articles were very diverse and irregularly distributed. This systematic review suggests that there is no difference between tilted compared with straight dental implants in the medium-long term (>5 years). However, further research is needed to generate long-term data and confirm the present review’s findings.

scholarly journals Dental implants in patients with epidermolysis bullosa: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic ◽  
Ricardo Santiago Gomez
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Epidermolysis Bullosa ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Implant Treatment ◽  
Molar Region

Abstract Purpose To integrate the available data published on patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) rehabilitated with dental implants, as well as to review the recommendations for EB patients receiving implants. Methods An electronic search was undertaken in February 2019 in five databases. Results Sixteen publications were included, reporting 28 patients with EB, rehabilitated with 161 dental implants. The mean ± SD patients’ age at implant surgery was 34.7 ± 12.1 years (range, 13–56). Only one implant was placed in the molar region, all other implants were placed in the incisor, canine, and premolar regions. Patients received a mean ± SD of 5.8 ± 2.8 implants (range, 2–11). Most of the patients received implant-supported fixed prostheses (fixed partial 14.3%, fixed full-arch 60.7%, overdenture 25%). Implant and prosthesis failure rates were 1.3% and 0%, respectively. The two implant failures were detected before or at the abutment connection. The mean ± SD follow-up time was of 39.2 ± 24.5 months (range, 6–111). The EB patient quality-of-life improved considerably as a result of treatment with dental implants. There is a series of dental care considerations that should be followed to smooth the implant treatment in EB patients. Conclusions The dental implant failure rate in EB patients seems to be very low, although the few cases reported in the literature were followed up for a short mean period, i.e., just a little bit longer than 3 years. More cases followed up for a long period are needed in order to be able to make a more reliable prognosis for the long-term oral rehabilitation of EB patients with dental implants.

Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 772-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Simonis ◽  
Thomas Dufour ◽  
Henri Tenenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Implant Survival

scholarly journals 3D Printing/Additive Manufacturing Single Titanium Dental Implants: A Prospective Multicenter Study with 3 Years of Follow-Up

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samy Tunchel ◽  
Alberto Blay ◽  
Roni Kolerman ◽  
Eitan Mijiritsky ◽  
Jamil Awad Shibli
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Single Tooth ◽  
Implant Crown ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Titanium Dental Implants ◽  
Single Crowns

This prospective 3-year follow-up clinical study evaluated the survival and success rates of 3DP/AM titanium dental implants to support single implant-supported restorations. After 3 years of loading, clinical, radiographic, and prosthetic parameters were assessed; the implant survival and the implant-crown success were evaluated. Eighty-two patients (44 males, 38 females; age range 26–67 years) were enrolled in the present study. A total of 110 3DP/AM titanium dental implants (65 maxilla, 45 mandible) were installed: 75 in healed alveolar ridges and 35 in postextraction sockets. The prosthetic restorations included 110 single crowns (SCs). After 3 years of loading, six implants failed, for an overall implant survival rate of 94.5%; among the 104 surviving implant-supported restorations, 6 showed complications and were therefore considered unsuccessful, for an implant-crown success of 94.3%. The mean distance between the implant shoulder and the first visible bone-implant contact was 0.75 mm (±0.32) and 0.89 (±0.45) after 1 and 3 years of loading, respectively. 3DP/AM titanium dental implants seem to represent a successful clinical option for the rehabilitation of single-tooth gaps in both jaws, at least until 3-year period. Further, long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Integrated Biomarkers for Depression in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Critical Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Wenzler ◽  
Christian Knochel ◽  
Ceylan Balaban ◽  
Dominik Kraft ◽  
Juliane Kopf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Affect Regulation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Neuropsychiatric Manifestation ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Control Functional

Depression is a common neuropsychiatric manifestation among Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients. It may compromise everyday activities and lead to a faster cognitive decline as well as worse quality of life. The identification of promising biomarkers may therefore help to timely initiate and improve the treatment of preclinical and clinical states of AD, and to improve the long-term functional outcome. In this narrative review, we report studies that investigated biomarkers for AD-related depression. Genetic findings state AD-related depression as a rather complex, multifactorial trait with relevant environmental and inherited contributors. However, one specific set of genes, the brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), specifically the Val66Met polymorphism, may play a crucial role in AD-related depression. Regarding neuroimaging markers, the most promising findings reveal structural impairments in the cortico-subcortical networks that are related to affect regulation and reward / aversion control. Functional imaging studies reveal abnormalities in predominantly frontal and temporal regions. Furthermore, CSF based biomarkers are seen as potentially promising for the diagnostic process showing abnormalities in metabolic pathways that contribute to AD-related depression. However, there is a need for standardization of methodological issues and for replication of current evidence with larger cohorts and prospective studies.

scholarly journals Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction and the six w’s: Who, How, Why, When, What, and Where to diagnose and operate?

2021 ◽  
pp. 145749692098276
Author(s):  
M. Podda ◽  
M. Khan ◽  
S. Di Saverio
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Small Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
Bowel Ischemia ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Highly Effective

Background and Aims: Approximately 75% of patients admitted with small bowel obstruction have intra-abdominal adhesions as their cause (adhesive small bowel obstruction). Up to 70% of adhesive small bowel obstruction cases, in the absence of strangulation and bowel ischemia, can be successfully treated with conservative management. However, emerging evidence shows that surgery performed early during the first episode of adhesive small bowel obstruction is highly effective. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the current evidence on adhesive small bowel obstruction management strategies. Materials and Methods: A review of the literature published over the last 20 years was performed to assess Who, hoW, Why, When, What, and Where diagnose and operate on patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction. Results: Adequate patient selection through physical examination and computed tomography is the key factor of the entire management strategy, as failure to detect patients with strangulated adhesive small bowel obstruction and bowel ischemia is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The indication for surgical exploration is usually defined as a failure to pass contrast into the ascending colon within 8–24 h. However, operative management with early adhesiolysis, defined as operative intervention on either the calendar day of admission or the calendar day after admission, has recently shown to be associated with an overall long-term survival benefit compared to conservative management. Regarding the surgical technique, laparoscopy should be used only in selected patients with an anticipated single obstructing band, and there should be a low threshold for conversion to an open procedure in cases of high risk of bowel injuries. Conclusion: Although most adhesive small bowel obstruction patients without suspicion of bowel strangulation or gangrene are currently managed nonoperatively, the long-term outcomes following this approach need to be analyzed in a more exhaustive way, as surgery performed early during the first episode of adhesive small bowel obstruction has shown to be highly effective, with a lower rate of recurrence.

scholarly journals Long-Term Comparison of Survival and Marginal Bone of Implants with and without Sinus Augmentation in Maxillary Molars within the Same Patients: A 5.8- to 22-Year Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1360
Author(s):  
Won-Bae Park ◽  
Ji-Young Han ◽  
Kyung Lhi Kang
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Frailty Model ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Posterior Maxilla

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is widely used and considered a predictable procedure for implant placement. However, the influence of MSFA on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) is still inconclusive. The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the long-term genuine influence of MSFA on the survival and MBL of implants by comparing those with and without MSFA only in maxillary molars within the same patients. Thirty-eight patients (28 male and 10 female), with a total of 119 implants, received implants with and without MSFA, and were followed up for 5.8 to 22 years. Patient- and implant-related factors were assessed with a frailty model for implant survival and with generalized estimation equations (GEE) for MBL around the implant. No variables showed a statistical significance for implant failure in the frailty model. In GEE analysis for MBL, MSFA did not show any statistical significance. In conclusion, MSFA demonstrated no significant influence on implant failure and MBL in posterior maxilla in this study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document