RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and prosthodontic complications of maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis fabricated from digital versus conventional full- arch implant impression. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 28 participants with edentulous maxillary arches were randomly selected and enrolled in two equal groups; Group I conventional impression group (CIG) and Group II Digital impression group (DIG). All patients were rehabilitated with maxillary screwretained implant prosthesis retained by 6 implants. Peri-implant MBL and prosthodontic complications and were registered at 6, 12, and 24 months (m). Data was collected and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Regarding the effect of time, there was a statistically significant increase in MBL at 6, 12 and 24 m follow-up periods (P<.001). As for the effect of groups, there was no statistically significant difference in MBL between CIG and DIG at 6, 12 and 24 m where P value was 0.083, 0.087 and 0.133 respectively. Prosthetic complications were recorded 19 times in the conventional group and 12 times in the digital group with no significant difference between both groups (P=.303). CONCLUSION: Digital full -arch implant impression is a reliable impression technique and may represent an alternative to conventional impression technique in the fabrication of maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis.
RESUMO
Objective: This systematic review was aimed to compare ball and locator attachment system on the basis of clinical and biomechanical performance of implant supported overdenture as well as biological and patient related outcomes. Material and methods: Open and free electronic and manual searches were performed in digital databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, and Scopus along with some other reliable sources. From the 667 retrieved records, 11 full-text controlled trials were included in this study. Risk of bias was assessed according to RoB 2.0 except for one RCT (economic evaluation), only assessed by CASP checklist. Results: From the 11 retrieved studies, total 183 locator and 219 ball attachments were identified in 452 subjects of 30 yrs-95 yrs of age. Studies provided data about prosthodontic complications or maintenance (replacement or the activation of matrix and patrix part, loss of retention, fracture and relining of the prosthesis, fracture of the attachment and the survival probability), oral health impact profile, soft tissue parameters and periodontal complications, marginal bone loss, patient related outcome and cost of the attachment systems. Only 5 studies were assessed at low risk bias, while other 6 at moderate to high risk of bias. Conclusion: Locator attachment system show lesser complications including loss of retention and lower maintenance appointments, lesser soft tissue, and periodontal complications than the ball attachment. Ball is better in terms of cost effectiveness. In other related outcomes, no significant differences were noted between ball and locator attachment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up studies (i.e., over 5 years), focusing on prosthetic outcomes and maintenance of implant-supported reconstructions in the edentulous maxilla, are scarce in the literature. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and report 10-year data on outcomes and maintenance of screw-retained implant-supported full-arch casted titanium-resin prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the randomized control trial cohort of 24 patients, the outcome and maintenance of 23 bridges were registered. RESULTS: One patient dropped out of the study prior to the 10-year control. Of the 23 remaining patients, 21 still had their original frameworks; one framework fractured after 8 years and one was remade after 7 years to create better support for the acrylic. The remaining 23 prostheses showed criteria of success, survival, and failure in 9, 82, and 9%, respectively. Tightening of two assembly screws was necessary in one patient. No detrimental effects were seen because of long cantilever extensions or opposing dentition. A total of 4.7 resin-related complications per prosthesis were observed; tooth fracture was the most common prosthetic complication. There was an indication of greater prevention in the number of resin-related complications with the use of lingual gold onlay compared with a resilient mouth guard, 0.71 and 1.67, respectively per bridge. The bridges were removed and reinserted 0.83 times per patient. No abutment or abutment screw fractures were registered. CONCLUSION: Fracture or wear of the reconstruction materials were considered predictable risks when using resin-based suprastructure materials. Status of opposing dentition and length of cantilevers did not confer additional risk. The use of a lingual gold onlay indicated prevention of resin-related complications. Future research should focus on the suprastructure materials to predict better overall treatment results of implant-supported full-arch bridges in the edentulous maxilla.