scholarly journals Comparative Clinical Study Using Short and Conventional Implants in Bilateral Jaw Posteriors

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-373
Author(s):  
Carlos Henrique Sardenberg Pereira ◽  
Anna Carolina Britto de Macedo Sardenberg Pereira ◽  
Carlos Eduardo Francischone
Keyword(s):  
Test Group ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Crown Length ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Comparative Clinical Study ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Implant Crown ◽  
And Control

Abstract The aim of this study was to clinically and radiographically compare extra short and standards implants. Forty-two implants were installed in 10 selected patients. They received prosthetic loading only after the conventional waiting time for osseointegration and the prostheses were made ferulized. Radiographic shots were performed to evaluate vertical and horizontal bone losses at times T1 (prosthetic installation), T2 (6 months follow-up) and T3 (12 months follow-up). Biological parameters such as bone level around the implants (CBL) were evaluated, CBL alteration (CBLC), total crown length (TCL) and implant/crown ratio (ICR) were digitally calculated. All implants included in the study were submitted to the analysis of the implant stability quotient (ISQ) at the time of implant installation (T0) and at 12 months of prosthetic function (T3). Data were statistically tested. The ICR was higher in the test group than in the control group (p<0.0001). The CBL measurements at the beginning of the study were 0.21±0.19 mm and 0.32±0.38 mm and at 12 months 0.65±0.24 mm and 0.87±0.34 mm, respectively in the test and control groups. CBLCs and CBL were similar at all times (p>0.05). No correlation was found between CBLC and ICR parameters, as well as between ISQ and implant length. We may conclude that standards and extra short implants can provide similar clinical results in prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic jaw over 12 months of follow-up.

scholarly journals Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla–7-Years Follow-up Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 940
Author(s):  
Jakub Hadzik ◽  
Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross ◽  
Izabela Nawrot-Hadzik ◽  
Tomasz Gedrange ◽  
Artur Pitułaj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level

Short 6 mm dental implants are considered as an alternative to the maxillary sinus elevation and bone augmentation procedure where there is a reduced alveolar ridge height. The aim of this study was to compare the implant survival rate between short dental implants (6 mm) and regular length implants (11–13 mm) when placed in combination with bone grafting and loaded with a single non splinted crown, seven years after placing the implant. It was conducted as a controlled clinical study of 30 patients with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla. The protocol included radiological and clinical evaluation of the C/I ratio (length of the superstructure divided by the length of the implant crestal part), marginal bone level (MBL), ultrasonography measurement of soft tissue surrounding implant (STT), patient-reported outcomes, and biological and technical complications. A total number of 28 implants (93%) remained integrated during follow-up period. MBL of 0.50 and 0.52 mm was observed for short implants and regular implants, respectively. MBL was checked for correlation with STT, and a negative correlation was found between MBL: STT. Our study has demonstrated a significantly lower implant survival rate for short implants compared to regular implants (87% compared to 100%). Despite the loss of several implants, good clinical results were achieved in the remaining implants in both groups. It is, therefore, worth considering short implants as an alternative to regular implants with a sinus lift surgery.

scholarly journals The Association of the One-Abutment at One-Time Concept with Marginal Bone Loss around the SLA and Platform Switch and Conical Abutment Implants

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Nasreen Hamudi ◽  
Eitan Barnea ◽  
Evgeny Weinberg ◽  
Amir Laviv ◽  
Eitan Mijiritsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Mucosal Barrier ◽  
Control Group ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One

Objectives: Repeated abutment disconnection/reconnection may compromise the mucosal barrier and result in crestal bone level changes. The clinical significance of this phenomenon is not yet clear, as most studies on this topic are short-term. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of abutment disconnections and reconnections on peri-implant marginal bone loss over a medium-term follow-up period. Material and methods: Twenty-one patients (6 men and 15 women) with a mean age 66.23 ± 9.35 year at the time of implant placement were included. All patients who received two adjacent nonsubmerged implants were randomly assigned into one of the two groups: definitive multiunit abutments (DEFs) connected to the implant that were not removed (test group) or healing abutments (HEAs) placed at surgery, which were disconnected and reconnected 3–5 times during the prosthetic phase (control group). Peri-implant marginal bone levels (MBL) were measured through periapical X-rays images acquired immediately after the surgery (baseline), at 4–7 months immediately after prosthetic delivery, and at 1-year and 3-year follow-up visits. Results: No implant was lost or presented bone loss of more than 1.9 mm during the 3-year follow-up; thus, the survival and success rate was 100%. Peri-implant mucositis was noticed in 38.1% DEFs and 41.9% of HEAs at the 3-year follow-up assessment. At the end of 3 years, the MBL was −0.35 ± 0.69 mm for participants in the DEFs group and −0.57 ± 0.80 mm for the HEAs group, with significant statistical difference between groups. Conclusions: Immediate connection of the multiunit abutments reduced bone loss in comparison with 3–5 disconnections noted in the healing abutments 3 years after prosthetic delivery. However, the difference between the groups was minimal; thus, the clinical relevance of those results is doubtful.

scholarly journals Tapered, Double-Lead Threads Single Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets and Healed Sites of the Posterior Jaws: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial with 1 to 3 Years of Follow-Up

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Cucchi ◽  
Elisabetta Vignudelli ◽  
Simonetta Franco ◽  
Luca Levrini ◽  
Dario Castellani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Primary Stability ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Implant Crown

Purpose. To evaluate the survival, success, and complication rates of tapered double-lead threads single implants, placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites of the posterior jaws. Methods. The enrolled patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: in the test group (TG), all implants were inserted at the time of tooth extraction; in the control group (CG), all implants were placed 3 months after extraction. The implants were followed for a period of 1 to 3 years after loading. The main outcomes were implant survival, complications, and implant-crown success. Results. Ninety-two patients had 97 installed implants (49 in the TG, 48 in the CG). Only two implants failed, in the TG; the survival rates were therefore 95.9% (47/49) and 100% (48/48) for TG and CG, respectively. In the surviving implants, no complications were reported, for an implant-crown success of 100%. Conclusions. Although a significant difference was found in the levels of primary stability between TG and CG, single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites of the posterior jaws had similar survival and complication rates. Crestal bone levels and peri-implant bone resorption showed similar values. A longer follow-up period is however required, to confirm these positive outcomes.

scholarly journals Rotary Instrument in Non-Surgical Treatment of Chronic Periodontal Disease: Clinic Randomized Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 952-959
Author(s):  
Carmine Verrusio ◽  
Mirko Medaglia ◽  
Roberto Lo Giudice ◽  
Francesco Puleio ◽  
David Rizzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Root Surface ◽  
Periodontal Therapy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Chronic Periodontal Disease ◽  
Rotary Instruments ◽  
And Control ◽  
Rotary Instrument

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of rotary instruments vs hand scalers in non-surgical periodontal therapy, studying the variation of periodontal health indexes. Materials and Methods: Forty patients (age between 30 and 70 years) with advanced chronic periodontitis, that were recruited for the study, were divided into two groups; control group and test group. Control patients were treated with hand scalers while test group patients were treated with rotary instruments. Periodontal indexes were evaluated at baseline and after 3 months. Results: Nonsignificant differences were found at 12 weeks follow up for all the parameters between test and control groups. Conclusions: Within their limits, the results indicate that different instruments can be effective in removing calculus and endotoxins. This requisite is mandatory for a proper periodontal healing. The reasons for clinicians to use diamond-coated instruments are related to a faster procedure, and the clinical evidence of a smooth root surface. The clinicians’ ability remains one of the most important variables that could affect periodontal therapy.

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Disinfectant and Non-disinfectant on the Separation of the Labia Minora in Infants

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 159-165
Author(s):  
Qiqi Chen ◽  
Guangyan Lin ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Ping Wei
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Tract Infection ◽  
Urinary Tract ◽  
Tract Infection ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Labia Minora ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Control ◽  
Experimental Group

Objective: To compare the effects of the use and non-use of a disinfectant on the outcomes of separation of the labia minora in infants. Methods: The patients were randomly divided into an experimental group with 24 cases and a control group with 25 cases. In the control group, 1% iodophor was used to clean and disinfect the large and small labia and the surrounding skin, while normal saline was used in the experimental group. Other procedures such as the surgery and nursing method were the same in both groups. Results: There were no symptoms of urinary tract infection such as redness of the vulva, swelling, pain, and abnormal urination in the test group and control group after three days of follow-up, and no recurrence was seen at one month of follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Use or non-use of a disinfectant to clean the urethral opening before separation of the labia minora has no significant effect on the outcomes, and does not cause postoperative urinary tract infection symptoms. Moreover, non-use of a disinfectant can prevent local irritation and reduce the economic burden on the patients.

scholarly journals A Six-Year Prospective Comparative Study of Wide and Standard Diameter Implants in the Maxillary and Mandibular Posterior Area

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (10) ◽  
pp. 1009
Author(s):  
Puneet Wadhwa ◽  
Seung-Kook Kim ◽  
Hyun-Jin Kim ◽  
Ho-Kyung Lim ◽  
Qi Jia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Wide Diameter ◽  
Mandibular Molar ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
Ridge Width

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to test whether wide diameter (6 mm) implants perform differently from standard diameter (4 mm) implants in terms of marginal bone level and survival rate. Materials and Methods: Our sample comprised 72 patients who underwent surgery; a total of 80 implants were placed in the maxillary or mandibular molar region. Patients were divided into two groups according to the diameter of the implant, and were followed up for six years after the final setting of the prosthetics. In the test group, 40 implants with 6-mm diameter were inserted; in the control group, 40 standard diameter implants were inserted. Using panoramic radiographs, we investigated mesial and distal marginal bone levels around the implant fixtures. Results: After the first implant surgery, three implants, including one wide diameter and two standard diameter implants, failed due to lack of osseointegration. We did not note any fixture fracture during the six-year follow-up. After loading, we observed a six-year survival rate of 97.29% with no statistically significant difference from standard diameter implants, with a survival rate of 94.87%. Conclusions: This study shows that 6-mm diameter implants may be considered in the presence of adequate alveolar ridge width in the posterior maxillary and mandibular regions.

scholarly journals A clinical and radiographic study of implants placed in autogenous bone grafts covered by either a platelet-rich fibrin membrane or deproteinised bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: a pilot randomised controlled clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Hartlev ◽  
Søren Schou ◽  
Flemming Isidor ◽  
Sven Erik Nørholt
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Collagen Membrane ◽  
Bovine Bone ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Implant Crown ◽  
Marginal Bone Level ◽  
Bovine Bone Mineral

Abstract Purpose To compare the survival and clinical performance of implants placed in sites previously augmented with autogenous bone grafts covered by either a platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane (PRF group) or a standard procedure (gold standard) involving coverage of the autogenous bone graft with deproteinised bovine bone mineral and a resorbable collagen membrane (control group). Methods A total of 27 partially edentulous patients (test n = 14, control n = 13) with indication for staged lateral bone block augmentation and dental implant placement were included. Twenty-four months after crown placement (range: 14–32 months), patients were recalled for a final clinical and radiographic follow-up. Outcome measures were implant survival, implant crown survival, clinical parameters of the implant, peri-implant marginal bone level, marginal bone level of adjacent tooth surfaces, biological and technical complications and patient-related outcome measures. Results Two implants were lost in the control group (85% survival rate); none were lost in the PRF group (100% survival rate). None of the 26 initially placed implant crowns were lost, but one implant and therefore one implant crown were lost after 20 months. Consequently, the definitive implant crown survival was 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 73–110%) in the control group and 100% in the PRF group. No statistical difference in implant survival rate (p = 0.13) or implant crown survival was seen between the groups (p = 0.28). The mean marginal bone level at the follow-up was 0.26 mm (95% CI: 0.01–0.50 mm) in the PRF group and 0.68 mm (95% CI: 0.41–0.96 mm) in the control group. The difference between the groups was − 0.43 mm (95% CI: − 0.80 to − 0.05 mm, p = 0.03), which was statistically significant (p = 0.03). Both groups demonstrated similar healthy peri-implant soft tissue values at the final follow-up. Conclusion Although the current study is based on a small sample of participants, the findings suggest that the methodology of the PRF and the control group approach can both be used for bone augmentation with a similar outcome. A significant, but clinically irrelevant, higher peri-implant marginal bone level was registered in the PRF group than in the control group. Patients in both groups were highly satisfied with the treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350749. Registered 17 April 2020. Retrospectively registered.

Effects of Virgin Coconut Oil as Adjunct Therapy in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Nazli Zainuddin ◽  
Nurul Azira Mohd Shah ◽  
Rosdan Salim
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Coconut Oil ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Virgin Coconut Oil ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Control

Introduction: The role of virgin coconut oil in the treatment of allergic rhinitis is controversial. Thus, the aim of the present study is to determine the effects of virgin coconut oil ingestion, in addition to standard medications, on allergic rhinitis. We also studied the side effects of consumption of virgin coconut oil. Methods: Fifty two subjects were equally divided into test and control groups. All subjects received a daily dose of 10mg of loratadine for 28 days. The test group was given 10ml of virgin coconut oil three times a day in addition to loratadine. The symptoms of allergic rhinitis were scored at the beginning and end of the study. Results:, the symptom score were divided into nasal and non-nasal symptom scores. Sneezing score showed a significant difference, however the score was more in control group than test group, indicating that improvement in symptom was more in control group. The rest of the nasal symptom and non-nasal symptom score showed no significant difference between test and control groups. Approximately 58% of the test subjects developed side effects from consumption of virgin coconut oil, mainly gastrointestinal side effects. Conclusion: In the present study, ingestion of virgin coconut oil does not improve the overall and individual symptoms of allergic rhinitis, furthermore it has side effects.

scholarly journals Clinical and Immunological Efficacy of Mangosteen and Propolis Extracted Complex in Patients with Gingivitis: A Multi-Centered Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 2604
Author(s):  
Jin-Young Park ◽  
Kyung-A Ko ◽  
Ji-Yeong Lee ◽  
Jae-Woon Oh ◽  
Hyun-Chang Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Daily Intake ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Immunological Parameters ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Control

Background: Mangosteen and propolis extracts (MAEC) have been potential therapeutic agents known to exhibit powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the clinical and immunological efficacy of MAEC as well as safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) on gingivitis and incipient periodontitis. Methods: This study was performed on 104 patients diagnosed with gingivitis or incipient periodontitis. At baseline, the participants were randomly allocated to either the test group, with daily intake of a single capsule containing 194 mg of MAEC for eight weeks, or control group, with placebo. Clinical periodontal evaluation and immunological parameters from saliva and gingival sulcular fluid were assessed at baseline, four, and eight weeks. Individual PROMs were assessed by OHIP-14 questionnaires. Results: There was a significant difference of modified gingival index at four and eight weeks between the test and control groups. In the test group, crevicular interleukin (IL)-6 was reduced, and the salivary matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 was increased after eight weeks. PROMs were improved up to four weeks compared to placebo. Conclusion: Oral administration of MAEC would have a potential to reduce gingival inflammation clinically and immunologically in the patients with gingivitis and incipient periodontitis.

scholarly journals Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 3846
Author(s):  
Fabio Rossi ◽  
Lorenzo Tuci ◽  
Lorenzo Ferraioli ◽  
Emanuele Ricci ◽  
Andreea Suerica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Test Group ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Relevant Difference ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Distal Support ◽  
Augmentation Procedure

Background: In edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone. Aim: To compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure. Material and Methods: Full-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: The changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were −0.01 ± 0.11 mm, −0.04 ± 0.13 mm, −0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and −0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were −0.21 ± 0.33 mm (p = 0.103), −0.30 ± 0.32 mm (p = 0.023), −0.40 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.144), and −0.54 ± 0.49 mm (p = 0.128), respectively. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups. Conclusions: Similar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups (p = 0.023).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document