Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the 5-year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0 ), and at 1 (T1 ), 12 (T12 ) and 60 (T60 ) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre-operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score-White Aesthetic Score), soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was -0.6 (-1.1 to -0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (-0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This 5-year follow-up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri-implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

Single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants with sinus floor augmentation or by 6-mm long implants: A 10-year randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) surgery or by 6-mm long implants during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were randomly allocated to receive one 11-mm long implant in combination MFSA or to receive one 6-mm long implant without any grafting. Twenty-one implants in 20 patients were placed in the 6-mm group and 20 implants in 18 patients were placed in the 11-mm group. Both groups were followed by clinical and radiographic examinations up to 10 years. Patients' satisfaction was also scored before treatment. RESULTS: Two patients died and eight patients moved during the follow-up. Two patients lost an implant in the 6-mm group and one implant was lost in the 11-mm group (implant survival 89.5% and 90.9%, respectively). From loading to 10 years' follow-up, mean ± SE marginal bone loss in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 0.18 ± 0.10 mm and 0.26 ± 0.12 mm, respectively, without a significant difference between the groups at 10 years (p = .650). In both groups, indices scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva and bleeding were low as well as mean pocket probing depth. Patients' satisfaction at 10 years was high in both groups; mean overall satisfaction in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 9.6 ± 0.6 and 9.2 ± 0.8, respectively (p = .168). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of 6-mm implants or 11-mm implants combined MFSA are equally successful during a 10-year follow-up period when applied for supporting a single restoration.

Mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional implant-supported single-tooth restorations: A laboratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional restorations on titanium temporary abutments, with and without thermo-mechanical ageing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants with a conical connection were divided into four groups (n = 24) and restored with temporary shell or laboratory-fabricated central or lateral incisor PMMA restorations that were relined or bonded on titanium temporary abutments. The diameter of the central and lateral incisor groups' implants was regular (ϕ 4.3 mm) or narrow (ϕ 3.5 mm), respectively. Half of each group's specimens were subjected to ageing, simultaneous thermocycling (5-55°C) and chewing simulation (120,000 cycles, 50 N, 1.7 Hz) resulting in eight groups in total (n = 12). The aged specimens were evaluated with optical microscopy, and survival and complication rates were determined according to modified USPHS criteria. The non-aged specimens and those that had survived ageing were loaded until failure, whereupon bending moments were calculated. RESULTS: Survival rates after ageing were 100% for all groups. Apart from wear facets (ϕ 2-3 mm) on the palatal restoration surface, no complications were observed. The mean fracture load and bending moments ranged between 597.6-847.1 N and 433.3-550.6 Ncm, respectively, with no significant differences between the eight groups (p = .25; p = .20). CONCLUSIONS: As patient-specific temporary shell central and lateral incisor provisional implant-supported restorations are mechanically stable enough to withstand clinical bite forces, even after thermo-mechanical ageing, they may serve as an alternative to laboratory-fabricated provisional restorations.

Implant supported overdentures in Sjögren's disease patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively investigate patient-reported outcomes and clinical performance of implant supported overdentures in edentulous Sjögren's disease (SjD) patients compared to subjects without SjD. METHODS: 51 implants were placed in 12 patients with SjD and 50 implants in 12 non-SjD patients to support overdentures. Clinical performance, marginal bone-level changes, patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were assessed at 1 (T1), 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months after placement of the overdenture. Patient satisfaction, ability to chew and OHRQoL were assessed with validated questionnaires. Marginal bone-level changes were measured on standardised dental radiographs. Clinical parameters included implant and overdenture survival, plaque, bleeding and gingival indices, and probing depth. RESULTS: OHRQoL in patients with SjD improved significantly after placement of implant supported overdentures at all measuring moments compared to baseline (p<0.05). Nevertheless, ability to chew tough and hard food was significantly better for non-SjD patients at all timepoints after placement of an implant supported overdenture (p<0.05). Implant survival at T18 was 100% in the patients with SjD and 98% in the non-SS group. Mean marginal bone loss at T18 did not differ between patients with SjD and non-SS patients, 1.12±0.74 mm and 1.43±1.66 mm, respectively (p=0.58). Clinical performance was good with no differences between the groups for all outcome measures (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-supported overdentures have a positive effect on OHRQoL and dental implants can be successfully applied in edentulous patients with SjD with nearly similar outcomes as in non-SjD subjects.

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10-year randomized controlled trial results.

AIM: To evaluate bar-supported maxillary implant overdenture treatment when supported by either four or six implants after 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous subjects with maxillary denture complaints and ample bone volume to facilitate implants in the anterior region of the maxilla were planned for implant overdenture treatment, randomized to receive either four implants (n = 25) or six implants (n = 25) and subsequently evaluated after 10 years of function. Outcome variables included peri-implant bone-level changes, implant and overdenture survival, complications, presence of plaque, calculus and bleeding, degree of peri-implant inflammation, probing depth and patient satisfaction. Differences between the groups and between evaluation periods were tested with a Student's t-test. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with totally 72 implants were lost to follow-up. Two patients from the six-implant group experienced implant loss (four implants), resulting in 96.1% implant survival in this group versus 100% survival in the four-implant group. Clinical, radiographical and patient-reported outcome measures did not differ statistically significant between the two groups. Patients from both groups were generally quite satisfied with the result after 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Similar and favourable outcomes are seen in bar-supported maxillary overdentures on either four or six anteriorly placed implants after a 10-year evaluation period.

Site-specific radiation dosage and implant survival in oral cancer patients: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the radiation dosages (Dmean ) on implant regions to identify the threshold for implant loss in patients with an intraoral malignancy treated with dental implants to support a mandibular denture during ablative surgery before volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected prospectively from 28 patients treated surgically for an intraoral malignancy, followed by postoperative radiotherapy (VMAT) and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 2 implants in the native mandible during ablative surgery. Implant-specific Dmean values were retrieved from the patients' files. Radiographic bone loss was measured 1 year after implant placement and during the last follow-up appointment. Implant survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate logistic regression and Cox-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of increasing implant-specific radiation dosages on implant loss. RESULTS: Five out of 56 placed implants were lost during follow-up (median 36.0 months, IQR 39.0). Radiographically, peri-implant bone loss occurred in implants with a Dmean > 40 Gy. Implant loss occurred only in implants with a Dmean > 50 Gy. CONCLUSION: An implant-specific Dmean higher than 50 Gy is related to more peri-implant bone loss and, eventually, implant loss.

Maxillary bar overdentures on four or six posterior implants: 10-year results from a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes when providing maxillary overdentures on four and six splinted implants placed in the posterior region during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six edentulous participants with functional maxillary denture complaints and insufficient bone volume to allow implant placement were scheduled for a bone augmentation procedure. After healing, participants were randomized to receive either four or six implants in the posterior maxilla. After 3 months of osseointegration, a bar overdenture was constructed. Implant survival, overdenture survival, clinical scores, peri-implant bone height changes, and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-six participants completed the 10-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100% in the 4-implant group and 96.7% in the 6-implant group. Seven new overdentures were made in the 4-implant group and 12 new overdentures were made in the 6-implant group due to excessive wear of the denture base and teeth. Clinical parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Mean marginal bone loss compared to baseline was 0.41 ± 0.37 mm in the 4-implant group and 0.70 ± 1.07 mm in the 6-implant group. Overall, patient satisfaction improved significantly, but did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: From this 10-year follow-up trial, it was concluded that bar maxillary overdentures on four or six implants in the posterior region of an augmented maxilla resulted in a comparable treatment outcome with high implant survival, limited loss of peri-implant marginal bone, and high patients' satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR9729).

Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with implant surface cleansing using saline during the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a resective surgical intervention, implant surfaces were randomly treated with either air polishing (test group n = 26 patients/53 implants) or saline-soaked cotton gauzes (control group n = 31 patients/ 40 implants). Primary outcome was change in mean bleeding on probing (BoP) from baseline to 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in mean suppuration on probing (SoP), plaque score (Plq), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal full-mouth scores (PFMS), and levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens. Clinical and radiographical parameters were analyzed using multilevel regression analyses. Microbiological outcomes were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: No differences between the test and control group were found for BoP over 12 months of follow-up, nor for the secondary parameters Plq, PPD, and MBL. Between both groups, a significant difference was found for the levels of SoP (p = 0.035). No significant effect on microbiological levels was found. A total number of 6 implants were lost in the test group and 10 in the control group. At 1-year follow-up, a successful treatment outcome (PPD<5 mm, max 1 out of 6 sites BoP, no suppuration and no progressive bone loss >0.5 mm) was achieved for a total of 18 implants (19.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing as implant surface cleansing method was not more effective than saline during resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. Both therapies resulted in low treatment success. TRIAL REGISTRY: https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.

Dental implants in dentate primary and secondary Sjögren's syndrome patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the clinical performance and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in dentate patients with primary and secondary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS and sSS, respectively) compared to patients without SS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven implants were placed in 17 patients with pSS/sSS and 26 implants in 17 non-SS patients to replace missing (pre)molars. Clinical performance, marginal bone-level changes, patient satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were assessed at 1 (T1), 6 (T6), 12 (T12), and 18 (T18) months after placement of the superstructure. Marginal bone-level changes were measured on standardized dental radiographs. Clinical parameters included implant and crown survival, plaque, bleeding and gingival indices, and probing depth. Patient satisfaction and OHRQoL were assessed with validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Implant survival at T18 was 100% in the patients with pSS/sSS and 96.2% in the non-SS group. Mean marginal bone loss at T18 did not differ between patients with pSS/sSS and non-SS patients, 1.10 ± 1.04 and 1.04 ± 0.75 mm, respectively (p = .87). Clinical performance was good with no differences between the groups for all outcome measures (p > .05). OHRQoL in patients with pSS/sSS had improved significantly after placement of implant supported crowns at all measuring moments compared to baseline (p < .05). Nevertheless, patient satisfaction and OHRQoL remained significantly higher for patients without SS at all measuring moments (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Dental implants can be successfully applied in dentate patients with pSS/sSS and have a positive effect on OHRQoL.

Immediate placement of single implants with or without immediate provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic region: A 5-year comparative study.

AIM: To compare marginal bone level changes around immediately placed and immediately provisionalized implants with immediately placed and delayed provisionalized implants in the aesthetic region after five years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were randomly assigned immediate implant placement with immediate (Group A: n = 20) or delayed (Group B: n = 20) provisionalization. Definitive crown placement occurred three months after provisionalization. The primary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level. In addition, survival rates, buccal bone thickness, soft peri-implant tissues, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: After 5 years, the mean mesial and distal marginal bone level changes were 0.71 ± 0.68 mm and 0.71 ± 0.71 mm, respectively, in group A and 0.49 ± 0.52 mm and 0.54 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, in group B; the difference between the groups was not significant (p = .305 and p = .477, respectively). Implant and restoration survivals were 100%. No clinically relevant differences in buccal bone thickness or in mid-facial peri-implant mucosal level, aesthetic and patient outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes following immediate implant placement and provisionalization were comparable with immediate implant placement and delayed provisionalization. (www.isrctn.com: ISRCTN57251089 and www.trialregister.nl: NL8255).

Biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid of healthy implants, untreated and non-surgically treated implants with peri-implantitis.

AIM: To compare biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) of healthy implants with levels in PICF of implants with peri-implantitis (before and after non-surgical treatment). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples were taken from 20 healthy implants (n = 17 patients) and from 20 implants with peri-implantitis (n = 19 patients) before and 3 months after non-surgical treatment using the Airflow Master Piezon® (EMS). A Luminex™ assay was used to evaluate pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-1ß, TNF-α, IL-6 and G-CSF, collagen degradation enzyme MMP-8, chemokines MCP-1 & MIP-1α/CCL3, bone markers OPG and sRANKL and interferon-γ. Clinical and radiographical characteristics were assessed. A Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysed between- and within-group differences. RESULTS: IL-1ß and MMP-8 levels were found significantly elevated in implants with peri-implantitis (p = .007; p = <.001, respectively). No difference in levels of TNF-α, IL-6, MCP-1 and MIP-1α/CCL3, OPG and G-CSF between healthy and diseased implants was found. Levels of sRANKL and INF-γ were under the level of detection. None of the biomarker levels improved after non-surgical therapy, and levels of IL-1ß and MMP-8 remained high. CONCLUSION: Implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis have higher levels of IL-1ß and MMP-8 in PICF compared to healthy implants. Non-surgical therapy did not influence the inflammatory immune response.

Linear and profilometric changes of the mucosa following soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation, in terms of change in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, at implants sites in the zone of the aesthetic priority. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (last search on 1 June 2020). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of different materials and timing of grafting in patients undergoing soft tissue augmentation at implant sites in the aesthetic zone with a follow-up of ≥1 year after implant placement. Outcome measures assessed included changes in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, implant survival, peri-implant health and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Eighteen out of 2,185 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in vertical mid-buccal soft tissue change (0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.13-0.56, p = .002) and mid-buccal mucosa thickness (0.66 mm, 95% CI: 0.35-0.97, p < .001) following immediate implant placement in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. Mean difference in mid-buccal mucosa level following delayed implant placement (0.17 mm, 95% CI: 0.01-0.34, p = .042) was also in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. With regard to mucosa thickness, the use of a graft was not in favour compared with no graft following delayed implant placement (0.22 mm, 95% CI: -0.04-0.47, p = .095). Observed changes remained stable in the medium term. CONCLUSION: Soft tissue augmentation in the zone of the aesthetic priority results in less recession and a thicker mid-buccal mucosa following immediate implant placement and less recession in mid-buccal mucosa following delayed implant placement compared with no graft.

Erythritol airpolishing in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty patients (n = 139 implants) with peri-implantitis (probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥5 mm, marginal bone loss (MBL) ≥2 mm as compared to bone level at implant placement, bleeding, and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP)) were randomly allocated to air polishing or ultrasonic treatment. The primary outcome was mean BoP (%) at 3 months after therapy (T3). Secondary outcomes were mean SoP (%), plaque score (Plq) (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), full mouth periodontal scores (FMPS) (%), levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens, and treatment pain/discomfort (Visual Analog Scale, VAS). Patients who were considered successful at T3 were additionally assessed at 6, 9, and 12 months. Differences between both groups were analyzed using multilevel statistics. RESULTS: Three months after therapy, no significant difference in mean BoP (%) between the air polishing and ultrasonic therapy was found (crude analysis ß (95% CI) -0.037 (-0.147; 0.073), p = .380). Neither secondary outcomes SoP (%), Plq (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), FMPS (%), and periodontal pathogens showed significant differences. Treatment pain/discomfort was low in both groups (VAS score airpolishing group 2.1 (±1.9), ultrasonic 2.6 (±1.9); p = .222). All successfully treated patients at T3 (18.4%) were still considered successful at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing seems as effective as piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. However, neither of the proposed therapies effectively resolved peri-implantitis. Hence, the majority of patients required further surgical treatment.

Soft tissue management at implants: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

OBJECTIVES: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions. RESULTS: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.

What is the optimal timing for implant placement in oral cancer patients? A scoping literature review.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer patients can benefit from dental implant placement. Traditionally, implants are placed after completing oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement). Implant placement during ablative surgery (primary placement) in oral cancer patients seems beneficial in terms of early start of oral rehabilitation and limiting additional surgical interventions. Guidelines on the ideal timing of implant placement in oral cancer patients are missing. OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping literature review on studies examining the timing of dental implant placement in oral cancer patients and propose a clinical practice recommendations guideline. METHODS: A literature search for studies dealing with primary and/or secondary implant placement in MEDLINE was conducted (last search December 27, 2019). The primary outcome was 5-year implant survival. RESULTS: Sixteen out of 808 studies were considered eligible. Both primary and secondary implant placement showed acceptable overall implant survival ratios with a higher pooled 5-year implant survival rate for primary implant placement 92.8% (95% CI: 87.1%-98.5%) than secondary placed implants (86.4%, 95% CI: 77.0%-95.8%). Primary implant placement is accompanied by earlier prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with oral cancer greatly benefit from, preferably primary placed, dental implants in their prosthetic rehabilitation. The combination of tumor surgery with implant placement in native mandibular bone should be provided as standard care.

Prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients-Challenges and new developments.

Head and neck cancer treatment can severely alter oral function and aesthetics, and reduce quality of life. The role of maxillofacial prosthodontists in multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancer patients is essential when it comes to oral rehabilitation and its planning. This role should preferably start on the day of first intake. Maxillofacial prosthodontists should be involved in the care pathway to shape and outline the prosthetic and dental rehabilitation in line with the reconstructive surgical options. With the progress of three-dimensional technology, the pretreatment insight in overall prognosis and possibilities of surgical and/or prosthetic rehabilitation has tremendously increased. This increased insight has helped to improve quality of cancer care. This expert review addresses the involvement of maxillofacial prosthodontists in treatment planning, highlighting prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients from start to finish.

General health, healthcare costs and dental care use of elderly with a natural dentition, implant-retained overdenture or conventional denture: an 8-year cohort of Dutch elderly (aged 75 and over).

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies have shown that elderly with a natural dentition have better general health than edentulous elderly, but this has not been confirmed in studies with longitudinal design. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study with a follow-up of 8 years aimed to assess differences in general health, healthcare costs and dental care use between elderly with a natural dentition and edentulous elderly wearing implant-retained or conventional dentures. Based on data of all national insurance claims for dental and medical care from Dutch elderly (aged ≥75 years) general health outcomes (chronic conditions, medication use), healthcare costs and dental care use could be assessed of three groups of elderly, viz. elderly with a natural dentition, elderly with conventional dentures and elderly with implant-retained overdentures. RESULTS: At baseline (2009), a total of 168,122 elderly could be included (143,199 natural dentition, 18,420 conventional dentures, 6503 implant-retained overdentures). Here we showed that after 8 years follow-up elderly with a natural dentition had more favorable general health outcomes (fewer chronic conditions, less medication use), lower healthcare costs and lower dental costs - but higher dental care use - than edentulous elderly. At baseline the general health of elderly with an implant-retained overdentures resembled the profile of elderly with a natural dentition, but over time their general health problems became comparable to elderly with conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that elderly with a natural dentition had significant better health and lower healthcare costs compared to edentulous elderly (with or without dental implants).

Effect of frenotomy on breastfeeding and reflux: results from the BRIEF prospective longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the Efficacy of Frenotomy with regard to Breastfeeding and Reflux Improvement (BRIEF) in infants with breastfeeding problems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 175 consecutive breastfeeding women with breastfeeding and reflux problems related to a tongue-tie or lip-tie fulfilling the inclusion criteria was longitudinally followed for 6 months. The effect of frenotomy on these problems was studied by a standardized oral assessment and completing the validated Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Short Form (BSES-SF), nipple pain score (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), and Infant Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire Revised (I-GERQ-R) questionnaires pre-frenotomy and at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months' post frenotomy. RESULTS: All 175 women completed the 1-month follow-up and 146 women the 6 months' follow-up. Frenotomy resulted in a significant improvement of BSES-SF, nipple pain score, and I-GERQ-R after 1 week, which improvement maintained to be significant after 1 month for BSES-SF and I-GERQ-R, and after 6 months for I-GERQ-R. The improvements were irrespective of the type lip-tie or tongue-tie underlying the breast feeding and reflux problems. No post-operative complications were observed. About 60.7% of infants still was breastfed 6 months after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Frenotomy is a safe procedure with no post-operative complications and resulting in significant improvement of breastfeeding self-efficacy, nipple pain, and gastro-oesophageal reflux problems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Frenotomy of a tongue-tie and or lip-tie can lead to improvement of breastfeeding and reflux problems irrespective of the type of tongue-tie or lip-tie and should be considered by clinicians as a proper tool to resolve these problems if non-interventional support did not help. INTERNATIONAL TRIAL REGISTER: ISRCTN64428423.

Mandibular dental implant placement immediately after teeth removal in head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about immediate implant placement in head and neck cancer patients. We studied implant survival and functional outcomes of overdentures fabricated on implants placed immediately after removal of the lower dentition during ablative surgery or preceding primary radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Inclusion criteria were primary head and neck cancer, dentate lower jaw, and indication for removal of remaining teeth. Two implants to support a mandibular overdenture were placed immediately after extraction of the dentition during ablative surgery, or prior to starting primary radiotherapy. Standardized questionnaires and clinical assessments were conducted (median follow-up 18.5 months, IQR 13.3). RESULTS: Fifty-eight implants were placed in 29 patients. Four implants were lost (implant survival rate 93.1%). In 9 patients, no functional overdenture could be made. All patients were satisfied with their dentures. CONCLUSIONS: Combining dental implant placement with removal of remaining teeth preceding head neck oncology treatment results in a favorable treatment outcome.