Hybrid-resolution facial and dental scanning: a cost-effective approach to utilizing 3D facial data in anterior dental implant restoration.

As digital technology becomes more prevalent in the practice of dental medicine, methods to fully replace 2-dimensional photography and analog devices such as the facebow are still in their infancy. As more practices adopt 3-dimensional (3D) intraoral scanners, effective digital communication of the relationships between the teeth and the face becomes essential. With the high cost of intraoral scanners, the additional expense of a face scanner is not a feasible investment for many practices. This article explores a technique for meshing (lower resolution) facial data obtained from a smartphone-based scanner with high-resolution intraoral scan data. In this approach, the data from a free 3D scanning application on a smartphone and a traditional intraoral scanner are meshed so that high-resolution data are available for intraoral features and lower resolution data are used to capture the gross contours of the face. In this way, a hybrid-resolution composite scan that incorporates all of the data needed to simulate the face and accurately reproduce the teeth is generated without the cost of additional scanning equipment. This article defines a new term, the facial registration scan, for use alongside the familiar digital bite registration obtained with an intraoral scanner. To illustrate the clinical use of the hybrid-resolution scan concept, this article presents a case in which this method was used for the restoration of maxillary anterior implants.

Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth seems more cost-effective than replacing them with dental implants.

DESIGN: A systematic appraisal without statistical aggregation. DATA SOURCES: The researchers utilized Ovid (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. They performed a comprehensive literature search, which concluded in July 2023. References of selected studies and systematic reviews were examined for additional relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: The review included studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews [SRs], narrative reviews, retrospective studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, case reports) discussing the cost-effectiveness of preserving teeth versus replacing them with implants in patients with severe periodontal disease. Non-English publications, letters, conference abstracts, and brief reports were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using a systematic review screening tool, resolving conflicts with a third reviewer. The extracted data included study design, patient demographics, treatment details, economic models, costs, and clinical implications. Quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, with scores converted to percentages. RESULTS: A total of 633 studies were identified for periodontal treatment, with 9 included after screening, while 114 studies were identified for dental implants, of which 3 were included after screening. The included studies were published between 2008 and 2018, predominantly from Germany, and mainly comprised retrospective designs, along with some prospective and model-based analyses. Follow-up periods ranged from 36 months to 33 years. Treatment costs were found to increase with disease severity, with surgical treatments being more expensive than nonsurgical ones, and supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) representing the highest cost share in periodontal treatment. Maintaining implants proved more costly than maintaining teeth, especially in cases of peri-implantitis. For chronic periodontitis, total treatment costs per tooth were €222 ± €98 over 18.7 years, and for aggressive periodontitis, €267 ± €148 over 16.9 years. Regular SPT cost €806 per tooth per year over 28.7 years, with significant cost variations across studies. A 2013 study found that maintaining implants was five times costlier than maintaining teeth, particularly if peri-implantitis developed. A 2018 study indicated that implant-supported crowns (ISCs) were the most expensive therapy. Only one study directly compared costs within the same patient, finding periodontal treatment to be more cost-effective than implants. Costs also increased with irregular SPT, aggressive periodontitis, and specialist treatments compared to regular SPT, chronic periodontitis, and treatments by general dental practitioners. The quality of included studies scored between 45% and 84.6%, indicating moderate to high quality, with methodological issues including unclear strategies for handling confounding factors and incomplete follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Implants are effective for replacing missing teeth but are associated with higher long-term costs and complications. Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth is generally more cost-effective, therefore, maintenance costs and potential complications should be carefully considered in treatment planning. There is a need for studies comparing the long-term cost-effectiveness of saving teeth compared to replacing them with implants, considering several variables for informed clinical decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of implants (Implant), insurance fixed dental prosthesis (IFDP) and private fixed dental prosthesis (PFDP) for a single intermediate missing tooth in the molar region to calculate the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). METHODS: The Markov model for cost-effectiveness analysis of the Implant, IFDP and PFDP was carried over maximum 30 years. The starting age for prosthetic treatment was decided to be 50 years. The General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) was used for the indicator of effectiveness as an oral health QOL value. The GOHAI value was collected from patients who visited the Department of Oral Implantology of Osaka Dental University between September 2014 and March 2016. In addition, the Tornado diagram was drawn and Monte-Carlo simulations made for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: From the analysis of survey of QOL of each stage and treatment, the selection of an Implant led to a higher QOL value than FDP. However, the estimated 30-year cost for IFDP was lower than Implant. It also became evident that PFDP had an extended dominated condition compared with IFDP and Implants. The ICER on the Implant versus IFDP was €1423.00. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a better of QOL value can be obtained from an Implant than from IFDP or PFDP. An evaluation form using an indexed scale for oral health-related aspects needs to be developed that is also consistent as an indicator of effect.

Patient-related outcome measures with implant therapy after 5 years.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients' perception of implant therapy in partial edentulism, after 5 years with implant-supported reconstructions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who received dental implants at the National Dental Centre, Singapore 3-9 years earlier (mean: 5.2 years) were invited to participate in the study. Responders were examined clinically, and asked to answer a questionnaire with 13 statements. RESULTS: Of the 880 patients, 206 patients, with 329 implants, agreed to participate. Of the implants, 82% supported single crowns, while 18% were reconstructed with splinted crowns or fixed dental prostheses. Function and chewing comfort yielded high patient satisfaction. Comparing chewing comfort for teeth and implants, respectively, 51% perceived no difference between the two. Patients were largely satisfied with the phonetic function and esthetic outcome. Only two in three patients were able to cleanse the implant reconstruction well, and majority of the patients reported no difference comparing the time taken to clean implants and teeth. Patients were generally unsure if the tissues around their implants or teeth bled more. Pertaining to expectations, most patients were satisfied with the treatment, and majority were willing to undergo the same treatment again. Most patients would recommend such treatment to friends, if indicated. Only slightly over one-third of the patients felt certain that the cost of the treatment was justified. CONCLUSION: The large majority was satisfied with the functional outcomes of implant treatment. However, the patients had a less than ideal understanding of gingival health around teeth and implants. Patients were less discerning than clinicians in the assessment of esthetic outcomes.

Costs and clinical outcomes of implant placement during ablative surgery and postponed implant placement in curative oral oncology: a five-year retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare costs and clinical outcomes of two protocols for implant placement in edentulous oral cancer patients: implant placement during ablative surgery and postponed implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All edentulous patients who underwent curative tumor surgery between 2007 and 2009 at the Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc) and UMC Utrecht, both in the Netherlands, were included retrospectively. At the Radboudumc, 79 of 98 patients received implants during ablative surgery. At the UMC Utrecht, 18 of 95 patients received implants after a disease-free period of at least 6 months, because satisfying conventional dentures could not be made. Costs, implant details and clinical outcomes were recorded retrospectively up to 5 years after tumor surgery. RESULTS: Individual costs of implant placement were lower in the during-ablative-surgery protocol (€2235 vs. €4152), while implant failure and loading were comparable to the postponed-placement protocol. In the during-ablative-surgery protocol, more patients received implant-retained overdentures (62% vs. 17%) and more patients had functioning dentures (65% vs. 47%), which were placed at an earlier stage (291 vs. 389 days after surgery). Overall costs of the during-ablative-surgery protocol were higher, as more patients received implants and functioning implant-retained dentures, which were more expensive than conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: Placing implants during ablative surgery lowered the individual costs of implant placement and led to more patients with functioning dentures, while implant failure and loading were comparable to postponed placement.

Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether short (6-mm) dental implants could be an alternative to sinus floor elevation (SFE) and placement of longer (≥10-mm) implants in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 3-year period, all patients presenting with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla were considered for inclusion in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly chosen either to receive short (6-mm) implants (test group [TG]) or to undergo SFE with simultaneous placement of standard-length (≥10-mm) implants (control group [CG]). SFE was performed using the lateral technique. In both groups, tapered implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) were placed. All implants were loaded after 4 months of healing. At each annual follow-up session, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. Primary outcomes were implant survival, stability (measured with the implant stability quotient [ISQ]), marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications; secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and treatment time and cost. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were assigned to the TG and 20 to the CG. Forty-five implants were inserted in each group. At 3 years, implant survival rates were 100% and 95.0% for the TG and CG, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.38). The mean ISQ values of the TG and CG did not differ at placement (68.2 vs. 67.8, P = 0.1), at delivery of the final restoration (69.5 vs. 69.4, P = 0.9), and after 1 year (71.0 vs. 71.5, P = 0.1); at 3 years, the CG had a significantly higher mean ISQ than the TG (72.4 vs. 71.6, P = 0.004). Mean MBL was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, both at 1 year (0.14 mm vs. 0.21 mm, P = 0.006) and at 3 years (0.20 mm vs. 0.27 mm, P = 0.01). A few complications were reported. Surgical time and cost were significantly higher in the CG than in the TG (P < 0.0001). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, results for short (6-mm) implants were similar to those for longer (≥10-mm) implants in augmented bone. Short implants might be preferable to SFE, because the treatment is faster and less expensive. Long-term randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these results.

A qualitative analysis on participants' perspectives on oral implants.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative research methods provide clinicians with information about the effectiveness of interventions and determined causal-effect relationships, whereas qualitative research investigates other aspects of clinical implant practice, particularly the participants' perspectives and expectations. The aim of the qualitative study was to understand the experience of participants with immediate single molar implants. METHODS: In-depth, audiorecorded, semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 participants who had participated in a controlled clinical trial of immediate molar implants. Participants were aged 36-77 years. Nine participants received single implants in mandibular molar fresh extraction sockets while the remaining participants had their implants in healed sites. The interviews that assessed participants' perspectives of the pre-operative, operative, and postoperative phases of therapy were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive and content analysis. RESULTS: Participants took part in the clinical trial mainly because it offered oral implant therapy at a reduced cost. The affordability of implant treatment was the main factor in determining restorative options. Minimal differences were found between male and female participants of different age groups in terms of their perceptions of function and aesthetics. However, single molar implants did not have an impact on aesthetics and self-esteem. Participants' expectations regarding the longevity of oral implants were not realistic and their knowledge about future maintenance needs was not adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Using face-to-face verbal conversation more frequently may improve communication between clinicians and participants and minimize misunderstanding about the procedures of different treatment modalities. Special emphasis should be placed on understanding the importance of maintenance by spending more time with the participants to identify any future barriers to maintaining good outcomes of oral implants.

Patient satisfaction 8-14 years after dental implant therapy - a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this questionnaire study was to investigate patient satisfaction 8-14 years after dental implant therapy and complications influencing the degree of satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent by post to 587 patients at a specialist clinic of periodontology. The questionnaire consisted of 19 statements or questions such as the degree of satisfaction with the implants and knowledge of complications. In nine of the questions, respondents were asked to grade the extent of their agreement with a statement by selecting from fixed answers. Three of the questions were designed to be answered using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: In total, 400 individuals (81%) responded to the questionnaire. The mean time elapsed since implant installation was 10 years. A great majority (81%) experienced a high chewing comfort and was satisfied or sufficiently satisfied (94%) with the aesthetic aspects of their implant restorations, while 32% of the individuals had experienced problems with their implant reconstructions. The disadvantage that patients remarked on was the cost of the treatment. Those who had experienced problems with their implant reconstructions were also less satisfied with the treatment. CONCLUSION: A great majority of the patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their dental implants 8-14 years after the treatment. Patients were less satisfied if they had experience of problems with their implant reconstructions and in cases when the clinicians were unable to resolve their complications.

Dental implant treatment following trauma: An investigation into the failure to complete Accident Compensation Corporation funded care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Among other restorative strategies, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides benefits for dental implant treatment to replace teeth lost as a result of trauma. While ACC has funded over 15,000 dental implants since 2002, the outcomes of this treatment and patient perceptions of this treatment have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the dental implant treatment outcomes and reasons for failure to complete restorative treatment in patients who had undergone trauma-related implant surgery funded by ACC between February 2006 and September 2009, but had not completed the prosthetic component of the treatment. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 399 patients, who had undergone dental implant surgery but not completed the crown restoration, was identified from the ACC database. These individuals were contacted by mail for expressions of interest and 181 clients were interviewed by telephone. Responses to open-ended questions were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed using a general inductive technique. RESULTS: A common emergent theme was the high level of satisfaction expressed by participants with the implant process, however just under half of those responding felt they had been pushed into having implants and were given the impression that this was the only treatment ACC paid for. The cost of the prosthetic phase of the treatment and surgical complications were identified as the primary reasons why participants failed to complete the restorative phase of treatment, after completing the surgical phase. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlighted the need to better inform patients of their treatment options and to allow time for them to process this information before progressing with care. A patient decision tool may help to give greater ownership of the treatment options. Newly implemented protocols to assist dentists to better assess treatment needs may also assist in achieving improvements in perceived treatment outcomes for patients.

Reasons for not using Implants to retain Complete Denture: Patients' Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain more information from complete denture (CD) wearers who did not receive dental implants, of the reasons preventing them from using implants to retain their CD in a selected sample of dental patients in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A paper-and-pencil questionnaire containing 20 direct questions of the possible reasons preventing CD wearers from receiving implants to retain their dentures was distributed in three different places in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: A total of 270 subjects were included in this survey. The results showed that 180 (66.7%) patients indicated that the fear of pain associated with implant placement was the main reason preventing them from receiving an implant treatment, followed by fear of the surgical procedure (175, 64.8%), fear of postoperative complications (166, 61.5%), information from other people about the various problems associated with implant treatment (154, 57%), and finally cost of the implant (141, 52.2%). CONCLUSION: Fear is the main reason preventing CD wearers from receiving implant treatment. Therefore, it is essential for dentists to be familiar with the reasons for implant refusal to overcome a common, yet an influential obstacle.

EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short implants in the posterior maxilla to longer implants placed after or simultaneously with sinus floor elevation procedures. The focused question was as follows: Are short implants superior to longer implants in the augmented sinus in terms of survival and complication rates of implants and reconstructions, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and costs? METHODS: A MEDLINE search (1990-2014) was performed for randomized controlled clinical studies comparing short implants (≤8 mm) to longer implants (>8 mm) in augmented sinus. The search was complimented by an additional hand search of the selected papers and reviews published between 2011 and 2014. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. Descriptive statistics were applied for a number of outcome measures. Survival rates of dental implants were pooled simply in case of comparable studies. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing short implants versus longer implants in the augmented sinus derived from an initial search count of 851 titles were selected and data extracted. In general, all studies were well conducted with a low risk of bias for the majority of the analyzed parameters. Based on the pooled analyses of longer follow-ups (5 studies, 16-18 months), the survival rate of longer implants amounted to 99.5% (95% CI: 97.6-99.98%) and for shorter implants to 99.0% (95% CI: 96.4-99.8%). For shorter follow-ups (3 studies, 8-9 months), the survival rates of longer implants are 100% (95% CI: 97.1-100%) and for shorter implants 98.2% (95% CI: 93.9-99.7%). Complications were predominantly of biological origin, mainly occurred intraoperatively as membrane perforations, and were almost three times as higher for longer implant in the augmented sinus compared to shorter implants. PROMs, morbidity, surgical time and costs were generally in favor of shorter dental implants. All studies were performed by surgeons in specialized clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the survey analyses demonstrated predictably high implant survival rates for short implants and longer implants placed in augmented sinus and their respective reconstructions. Given the higher number of biological complications, increased morbidity, costs and surgical time of longer dental implants in the augmented sinus, shorter dental implants may represent the preferred treatment alternative.

The patient undergoing implant therapy. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015.

INTRODUCTION: The assignment for this working group was to update the existing knowledge regarding factors considered being of special relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. This included areas where conflicting opinions exists since long or recently has been expressed, like the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery and peri-implantitis. Also areas with growing interest and concern such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and health-economy was included in this review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature in the respective areas of interest (antibiotic prophylaxis, peri-implantitis, patient-reported outcome measurements and health-economic aspects) was searched using different strategies for the different papers. Search strategies ranged from a complex systematic review to systematic- and narrative reviews, depending on subject and available literature. All collected material was critically reviewed. Four manuscripts were subsequently presented for group analysis and discussion and plenum discussions and concensus approval. The selected areas were considered to be of key importance and relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. RESULTS: The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. The group's conclusions, identified knowledge gaps, directions for future research and concensus statements are presented in this article. The following reviews were available for group discussions and the foundation for subsequent plenary sessions: Lund B, Hultin M, Tranaeus S, Naimi-Akbar A, Klinge B. (2015) Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement. A complex systematic review. Renvert S & Quirynen M. (2015) Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Matthys C, Cosyn J. (2015) The current use of patient centered/reported outcomes in implant dentistry. A systematic review. Beikler T & Flemmig T.F. (2015) Economic evaluation of implant-supported prostheses. A narrative review.

Reimbursement systems influence prosthodontic treatment of adult patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of reimbursement system and organizational structure on oral rehabilitation of adult patients with tooth loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data were retrieved from the databases of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency. The data consisted of treatment records of patients aged 19 years and above claiming reimbursement for dental care from July 1, 2007 until June 30, 2009. Before July 1, 2008, a proportionately higher level of subsidy was available for dental care in patients 65 years and above, but thereafter the system was changed, so that the subsidy was the same, regardless of the patient's age. Prosthodontic treatment in patients 65 years and above was compared with that in younger patients before and after the change of the reimbursement system. Prosthodontic treatment carried out in the Public Dental Health Service and the private sector was also analyzed. RESULTS: Data were retrieved for 722,842 adult patients, covering a total of 1,339,915 reimbursed treatment items. After the change of the reimbursement system, there was a decrease in the proportion of items in patients 65 years and above in relation to those under 65. Overall, there was a minimal change in the proportion of treatment items provided by the private sector compared to the public sector following the change of the reimbursement system. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of service provider, private or public, financial incentive such as the reimbursement system may influence the provision of prosthodontic treatment, in terms of volume of treatment.

Retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement: a cost-effectiveness comparison of different strategies.

AIM: The comparative cost-effectiveness of retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement (FI) remains unclear. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of retaining FI molars via periodontal treatments versus replacing them via implant-supported crowns (ISCs). METHODS: Using tooth-level Markov models, we followed a molar with FI degree I or II/III in a 50-year-old patient over his lifetime. Tooth-retaining periodontal treatments (scaling and root planing, flap debridement, root resection, guided-tissue regeneration, tunnelling) were compared with tooth replacement using ISCs. We analysed costs, time until first re-treatment and total time of tooth or implant retention. The model adopted a private payer perspective within German health care. Transition probabilities were calculated based on current evidence. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were performed, and robustness of the model and effects of heterogeneity assessed using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Despite requiring re-treatment later than other strategies, ISCs were the most costly therapy. Compared with most periodontal treatments, ISCs were retained for shorter time than natural teeth regardless of the degree of FI, the patients' age or risk profile (smoker/non-smoker). CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data and within its limitations, our study indicates that retaining FI molars via periodontal treatments might be more cost-effective than replacing them via ISCs. Changes in the underlying evidence or the setting might alter these results.

Patient-related and financial outcomes analysis of conventional full-arch rehabilitation versus the All-on-4 concept: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-related variables such as cost of treatment, length of the treatment period, and comfort provided by the interim prosthesis when treatment planning for full-arch rehabilitation are often neglected in dental publications. METHODS: Two patient cohorts were followed up longitudinally in this study: the "All-on-4 treatment concept group" and the "historical group." The number of implants, total treatment time, number of surgical procedures, number of sinus grafts, necessity for immediate provisional implants, adjusted cost associated for treatment in each group, and the quality of interim prosthesis were compared. RESULTS: The total adjusted cost for patients receiving All-on-4 treatment concept averaged at $42,422 ± 3860 (&OV0556;31,392 ± 2856), whereas the mean total adjusted cost for the historical group was $57,944 ± 20,198 (&OV0556;42,879 ± 2113) (P = 0.01). The difference in cost had a mean value of $7307 (&OV0556;5407) per jaw. Factors associated with complexity of treatment and patient comfort, such as the quality of interim prosthesis, number of surgeries, and duration of treatment time, all significantly favored the All-on-4 treatment concept group in comparison with conventional treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: When implant rehabilitation of the total jaw is sought, the All-on-4 treatment concept should be considered the least costly and least time consuming treatment option.

Why guided when freehand is easier, quicker, and less costly?

Computer-assisted implant planning and subsequent production of a surgical template based on this plan has gained attention because it provides restoratively driven esthetics, patient comfort, satisfaction, and the option of flapless surgery and immediate restoration. However, it adds expense and requires more time. Another significant but not so apparent advantage may be improved survival and success over freehand techniques in types III and IV bone. This retrospective analysis was undertaken to examine that possibility. It reports 1-year outcome for 80 implants in 27 consecutively presenting patients treated over a 7-year period using computer-assisted techniques across all bone qualities in commonly encountered treatment indications in private practice. Implants were placed to support single teeth, small bridges, and complete arch restorations in exposed or immediately restored applications, based on primary stability as determined by insertion torque, resonance frequency analysis, and Periotest. For the 80 implants supporting 35 restorations, the median observation period is 2.66 years; 73 implants supporting prostheses in 22 patients had readable radiographs at 1 year. There was a 1-year overall implant survival and a success rate of 100%. Radiographic analysis demonstrated the change in bone level from the platform at 1-year is less than 2 mm. Intra-operative median measurements of primary stability were insertion torque, 40 Ncm; resonance frequency, 76 ISQ; and Periotest, -3. All intra-operative measurements were consistent for acceptable primary stability regardless of bone density. Restoratively driven diagnosis and precision planning and initial fit were possible with computer-assisted techniques resulting in the achievement of high primary stability, even in areas of less dense bone. The ability to plan implant position, drill sequence, and implant design on the basis of predetermined bone density gives the practitioner enhanced pretreatment information which can lead to improved outcome.

An economic evaluation of maxillary implant overdentures based on six vs. four implants.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to assess the value for money achieved by bar-retained implant overdentures based on six implants compared with four implants as treatment alternatives for the edentulous maxilla. METHODS: A Markov decision tree model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates for implant and denture failure as well as patient-centred health outcomes as available from recent literature. The decision scenario was modelled within a ten year time horizon and relied on cost reimbursement regulations of the German health care system. The cost-effectiveness threshold was identified above which the six-implant solution is preferable over the four-implant solution. Uncertainties regarding input parameters were incorporated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Within a base case scenario of average treatment complexity, the cost-effectiveness threshold was identified to be 17,564 € per year of denture satisfaction gained above of which the alternative with six implants is preferable over treatment including four implants. Sensitivity analysis yielded that, depending on the specification of model input parameters such as patients' denture satisfaction, the respective cost-effectiveness threshold varies substantially. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that bar-retained maxillary overdentures based on six implants provide better patient satisfaction than bar-retained overdentures based on four implants but are considerably more expensive. Final judgements about value for money require more comprehensive clinical evidence including patient-centred health outcomes.

Awareness, attitude, and expectations toward dental implants among removable prostheses wearers.

PURPOSE: To assess removable denture patient awareness, expectations, and source of information about dental implants (DIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients [150 removable partial denture (RPD) wearers and 150 complete denture wearers (CDWs)] attended the removable prosthodontic clinic at Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology. Patients were evaluated using a pilot-tested, 21-question questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of participants were aware of DIs, with no difference between CDWs and RPD wearers (p > 0.05). The participants' friends and relatives were the main source of information (63.4%), followed by dentists (32.4%). Improvement in function was the predominant reason (55.7%) for patients to consider DIs. Fear of unknown side effects was the major factor in preventing patients from choosing DIs (11.7%), followed by high cost (9.7%) and surgical risk (8.7%). Approximately 89% had no information or were poorly informed about DIs. Over two-thirds of patients did not know about the care (78.3%) of DIs, causes of DI failure (69.7%), or DI duration of service (80.7%). Only 24.7% knew that DIs would be anchored to the jawbone; however, 27.3% and 56.7% of CDWs and RPD wearers, respectively, preferred (p < 0.05) to have their teeth replaced with DIs. High costs were considered the major disadvantage of DIs in 45% of participants, followed by fear of surgery (27.3%), and long treatment times (24.7%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a high awareness about DIs among removable denture patients; however, this awareness was associated with a low level of accurate information.

A comparison of teeth and implants during maintenance therapy in terms of the number of disease-free years and costs -- an in vivo internal control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the cost minimization and cost effectiveness involved in maintaining teeth and implants for patients treated for periodontal disease. MATERIALS & METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out encompassing all patients who had initial periodontal treatment followed by implant placement and maintenance therapy in a specialist practice in Norway. The neighbouring tooth and the contra-lateral tooth were used as controls. The number of disease-free years and the extra cost over and above maintenance treatment for both teeth and implants were recorded. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 43 patients with an average age of 67.4 years. The patients had 847 teeth at the initial examination and received 119 implants. Two implants were removed 13 and 22 years after insertion. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 53.5% at the patient level and 31.1% at the implant level. The prevalence of periodontitis was 53.4% at the patient level and 7.6% at the tooth level. The mean number of disease-free years was: implants: 8.66; neighbouring tooth: 9.08; contra-lateral teeth: 9.93. These mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. The extra cost of maintaining the implants was about five times higher for implants than for teeth. CONCLUSION: The number of disease-free years was the same for neighbouring teeth, contra-lateral teeth and implants. However, due to the high prevalence of peri-implantitis, the cost of maintaining implants was much higher than the cost of maintaining teeth.

Knowledge and attitude of patients toward dental implants as an option for replacement of missing teeth.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to access the level of knowledge and attitude of patients toward implant treatment as an option for replacement of missing teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An epidemiological study was conducted among 440 subjects who attended the OPD of two Departments (Prosthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery). A self-administered structured closed ended questionnaire pretested through a pilot survey was used in the study. The data were analyzed using the SPSS version 15.0. The Student's t-test and ANOVA test were used as test of significance. RESULTS: Out of 440 subjects asked about the knowledge and attitude about implants, only 33.3% had heard of implants as a treatment modality and dentists were the main source of information. Very few people had undergone implant surgery. The level of awareness increased with education. The main factor for not having implants was due to its high treatment charges. However, they were interested to know more about the implant treatment modality. CONCLUSION: The survey was conducted in a dental institute and majority of the participants were unaware about dental implants. It also showed that need for providing more information to the patients about this treatment modality.