Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Which impression material, impression tray type, and implant impression technique combination produces the most accurate complete-arch impression is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant impression accuracy of a completely edentulous arch made with addition silicone occlusal registration material and an open tray with the implant impression accuracy of other conventional impression techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A master cast was fabricated from Type IV gypsum with four 3.8-mm diameter implants with internal hexagon located in the area of mandibular canines and first molars. Impressions (N=60) were made from the master cast using the 6 techniques investigated: group B-OC-N with occlusal registration impression material (B), open custom tray (OC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group B-OS-N with occlusal registration impression material (B), open plastic perforated stock tray (OS), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PE-OC-N with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), open custom tray (OC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PE-OC-S with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), open custom tray (OC), and impression pins splinted (S) with autopolymerizing resin cut after 17 minutes and reconnected; group PE-CC-N with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), closed custom tray (CC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PVS-CS-N with simultaneous double-mix polyvinyl siloxane impression material (PVS), closed stock perforated metal tray (CS), and nonsplinted impression pins (N). Type IV gypsum casts were fabricated 24 hours after making the impressions. A computerized numerical control 3D coordinate measuring machine was used to measure the absolute differences of the distances between the centroids of the 4 implants among the casts produced and the distances measured at the master cast. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine differences among the experimental groups (α=.05). The Mann-Whitney U post hoc analysis was used for all group combinations. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the test groups B-OC-N and PE-OC-S, which were more accurate than the other groups. Group B-OS-N resulted in the least accurate impressions of all experimental groups. Group PE-OC-S resulted in more accurate impressions than the PE-OC-N group. No statistically significant differences were found between groups PE-OC-N and PE-CC-N or between groups PVS-CS-N and PE-CC-N. CONCLUSIONS: For complete edentulism, the use of silicone occlusal registration material with an open custom tray and nonsplinted impression pins resulted in impressions as accurate as those produced with PE open custom tray with splinted impression pins. These 2 techniques resulted in more accurate impressions than the other 4 techniques studied.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition.

BACKGROUND: Management of individuals presenting with partial loss of teeth is a common task for dentists. Outcomes important to the management of missing teeth in the partially absent dentition should be systematically summarized. This review recognizes both the challenges associated with such a summarization and the critical nature of the information for patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different prostheses for the treatment of partially absent dentition in terms of the following outcomes: long-term success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 21 March 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to March 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to March 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted several authors to identify non-published trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods (including the design and materials used) of treating partial edentulism, with clinically relevant outcomes, were included in this review. Trials reporting only surrogate outcomes, such as plaque accumulation or gingival volume, were excluded from this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out the screening of eligible studies, assessment of dimensions of quality of trials, and data extraction. Results were expressed as mean differences for continuous data, risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for time-to-event data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-four per cent of these were assessed as being at high risk of bias and the remainder were at unclear risk of bias. The clinical heterogeneity among the included studies precluded any attempt at meta-analysis. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether one type of removable dental prosthesis (RDP) was better or worse than another. With fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), there was no evidence that high gold alloys are better or worse than other alloys, nor that gold alloys or frameworks are better or worse than titanium. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether zirconia is better or worse that other FDP materials, that ceramic abutments are better or worse than titanium, or that one cement was better or worse than another in retaining FDPs. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of FDPs and RDPs in patients with shortened dental arch or to determine the relative advantages of implant supported FDPs versus tooth/implant supported FDPs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on trials meeting the inclusion criteria for this review, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a particular method of tooth replacement for partially edentulous patients.

Risk of Dental Implant Failure Associated With Medication Use.

PURPOSE: The probability of achieving important clinical outcomes is an increasingly important factor for patients considering various treatment options for tooth loss. For oral reconstruction involving dental implants, the patient-specific risks of implant failure may be influenced by the patient's medication profile. The purpose of this study was to identify associations between dental implant failure and medication use in a consecutive series of patients seen from October 1983 through December 2014 at the Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this patient-level analysis, demographic, implant-specific, and medical profile data were abstracted from a prospective clinical database and individual medical records and used to determine the time to first implant failure. Implant failure-free survival at the patient level was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations of demographic characteristics and medication use with implant failure were evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards regression models and summarized with hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In the 31-year study period, 6358 patients received their first dental implant (median age, 53 years). The median follow-up duration of the 5645 patients whose implants did not fail was 5.8 years, and 713 patients had implant failure (median, 0.6 years). All associations were adjusted for age, sex, and era of implantation because these features strongly influence medication use and implant failure. After adjustment, no medication increased the risk of implant failure in the cohort; specifically, medication use at the time of implant placement or starting a medication after implant placement did not increase the risk of implant failure. Among the medications used at the time of implant placement, corticosteroids were associated with a reduced risk of implant failure (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99; p = 0.04). This association was not seen when corticosteroids were started after implant placement. CONCLUSION: In the population studied, medication use was not associated with an increased risk of dental implant failure.

Association Between Early Implant Failure and Prosthodontic Characteristics.

PURPOSE: To identify associations between early implant failure and prosthodontic characteristics that could be used to guide subsequent continuous quality improvement efforts of patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An implant-level analysis was performed in which data were abstracted from a prospective clinical database of all adult patients treated with implants and followed up from January 2000 through December 2014 at the Department of Dental Specialties at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. These data were used to determine time to implant failure. Associations between prosthodontic characteristics and early implant failure were evaluated with Cox proportional hazards regression models and summarized with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 8762 implants in 2787 patients, 395 (4.5%) failed within the first year of placement at a mean (SD) of 127 (97) days (range, 2-364 days). Univariable analysis showed no associations between early implant failure and use of a cover screw, prosthesis, or definitive or provisional prosthesis at implant placement. Three of 25 single crowns failed, and use of a single crown was significantly associated with early implant failure (HR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.08-14.35; P = 0.04). This study identified no significant associations between prosthodontic characteristics identified after implant placement and early implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a prosthesis at implant placement, use of a definitive or provisional prosthesis, and early mechanical complications were not associated with increased risk of early implant failure. Quality improvement efforts should focus on aspects of decision making that aim to decrease surgical complications.

Relationship between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Risk of Dental Implant Failure.

PURPOSE: To identify associations between implant failure and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication use in a cohort of consecutive patients receiving dental implants during a 20-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who received at least 1 dental implant from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2014, assessing their history of SSRI use, active SSRI use, and SSRI use during follow-up with implant failure. Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed associations between demographic characteristics and SSRI use with implant failure, and outcomes were summarized with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Follow-up SSRI use was analyzed with time-dependent covariates. RESULTS: During the study period, 5456 patients received their first implant (median age, 53 years). The median duration of follow-up was 5.3 years (interquartile range, 2.3-10.2 years) for the 4927 patients who did not have implant failure. For the 529 patients who had implant failure, it occurred at a median of 0.5 years. After adjusting for age, sex, and era of implant, history of use of the SSRI sertraline was associated with an increased risk of implant failure among all patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15-2.23; p = 0.006) and among the subset of patients with a history of SSRI use (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.07-2.52; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In the population reviewed, a history of sertraline use was associated with a 60% greater risk of implant failure; however, active SSRI use at the time of implant placement or during follow-up was not significantly associated with an increased risk of implant failure.

Early Implant Failure Associated With Patient Factors, Surgical Manipulations, and Systemic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Systematic monitoring of important clinical outcomes is increasingly important for health-care decision making, especially in the context of continuous quality improvement. Dental implant failure within the first year (early failure) has been previously shown to be more common than subsequent failure. The purpose of this study was to identify associations between early implant failure and patient factors, surgical manipulations, and systemic conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors retrospectively identified the records of consecutive adult patients with dental implants seen between 2000 and 2014 in the Department of Dental Specialties, at the Mayo Clinic. Demographic, surgical, and medical data were extracted from the database and individual medical records to determine time to first implant failure. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess associations of demographic, surgical, and systemic conditions with implant failure during the first year post-implantation, summarized as hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]). RESULTS: Among 8540 implants identified during the study period, 362 (4.2%) failed within the first year of placement at a mean (SD) of 129 (96) days after placement. On univariate analysis, most candidate predictors were not shown to influence first-year failure. Preplacement surgical manipulations associated with increased early implant failure were bone augmentation only (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.02-2.05; p = 0.04), socket preservation (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.33-5.38; p = 0.006), and xenogenic material (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.11-4.04; p = 0.02). Alveoloplasty only at placement was associated with decreased early implant failure (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.65; p = 0.001). Overall, 318 implants (3.7%) had surgical complications within the first year of placement at a mean (SD) of 110 (114) days after placement; any surgical complication was significantly associated with early implant failure (hazard ratio, 15.84; 95% CI, 11.10-22.61; p < 0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, and implant era, no single or multiple medical condition(s) and no single or multiple medication(s) increased patient risk of implant failure in the first year after placement. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support a targeted effort to reduce the incidence of surgical complications to reduce early failure of dental implants.

External versus internal abutment connection implants: a survey of opinions and decision making among experienced implant dentists in Japan.

Internal connection implants have been attracting attention in recent years leading to their being adopted for many implant systems and an increase in market share over other connections. However, internal connection implants have only been used clinically for a short period of time resulting in few clinical studies investigating outcomes and a lack of comparative clinical evidence to support their use over external hex systems at this time. Given the fact that clinical evidence is lacking regarding implant connection performance comparisons, it is important to understand what information clinicians use to choose between systems. The purpose of this study regarding implant decision-making was to ask clinicians to provide subjective evaluations of internal connection implants, in comparison with external connection implants. The survey was constructed to cover four aspects of interest; general responder information, surgical procedures and experience, prosthodontic treatments and outcomes, and implant complications. The dentists' responses indicated that internal connection implants are as user-friendly as external hex implants with respect to implant surgery, but they are favored for prosthodontic handling because impression coping and abutment placement are felt to be easier. In addition, it was revealed that dentists strongly feel that there is a lack of biological and prosthodontic evidence to support the use of internal connection implants. The findings reveal the responding clinicians recognize that they often make decisions without compelling evidence to favor one system over another. Decisions are often based on perceived ease of use or third party (colleague or manufacturer) input. For future investigations, we will seek to better understand the relative influence and validity of all forms of information used (especially third party input), as well as what barriers exist to clinicians' use of more evidence based data.

Evidence and the practice of prosthodontics: 20 years after EBD introduction.

Prosthodontics has a rich history related to the principles embedded in evidence-based health care. This paper reviews the evidence-based prosthodontics activity over the past 3 decades. It also discusses the impact of health care reform on evidence-based medicine as it relates to broader context of care outcomes. Finally, the value associated with an Evidence Stewardship emphasis in prosthodontics is presented. This emphasis suggests that combining evidence from clinical trials with evidence from clinical practice environments best equips clinicians for the management of patients in the future. Adoption of a strategic Evidence Stewardship direction is an extended commitment to change that recognizes health care reform aims and seeks to be an accountable provider group in the broader health care arena. The vision to form a representative network of prosthodontic practitioners that augments a commitment to Cochrane "clinical trial" data demonstrates a responsibility to professional transparency about who we are, adds value for patients and oral health care providers, impacts teachers and students in dental education, and provides a measure of care accountability unique in dentistry.

Practice-based clinical evaluation of ceramic single crowns after at least five years.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Long-term practice-based clinical evaluations of various contemporary ceramic crown restorations from multiple practitioners are limited. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic single crowns and to identify factors that influence their clinical performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ceramic single crowns that had been placed at the Mayo Clinic and in function since 2005 were identified and included in the study. The restorations were examined clinically, radiographically, and with photographs. Modified United States Public Health Services criteria were used for the clinical evaluation. The ceramic systems evaluated were bilayer and monolayer. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (41 women, 18 men) with 226 single teeth and implants restored with single ceramic crowns were identified. The mean duration from insertion date to study examination date was 6.1 years. Thirteen restorations (6%) were replaced at a mean 3.3 years after insertion date (range, 0.1-6.1 years). Estimated replacement-free survival rates (95% confidence interval [CI]; number of teeth/implants still at risk) at 5 years after insertion date were 95.1% (95% CI, 92.2-98.1; 153) and at 10 years were 92.8% (95% CI, 89.1-96.8; 8). The most common reason for replacement was fracture to the core of posterior layered ceramic crowns. The most commonly used luting agent was resin-modified ionomer cement. Most restorations exhibited clinically acceptable marginal integrity, shade, no caries recurrence, and no periapical pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of ceramic single crowns at 5 and 10 years supports their application in all areas of the mouth. With the majority of fractures to the core occurring early in the lifetime of layered ceramic posterior crowns, consideration of other monolithic ceramic systems for posterior crowns is advised.

Practice-based evidence from 29-year outcome analysis of management of the edentulous jaw using osseointegrated dental implants.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to summarize practice-based evidence associated with long-term outcomes (>20 years) in the management of edentulous patients. The patient population was managed with implant-supported prostheses, following the original osseointegration protocol, provided over the period from 1983 to 1991 in the group prosthodontics practice at the Mayo Clinic. The data are an example of practice quality assurance monitoring and are used to refine care delivery when needed and to provide information regarding expected outcomes in a shared decision-making interaction with prospective patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixty four patients with at least one edentulous jaw were identified. Of these, 255 completed their care and follow-up at the Mayo Clinic (209 mandible only, 35 maxilla only, 11 mandible and maxilla). Prosthodontic outcomes categorized as anticipated or unanticipated prosthetic and biologic events and the respective interventions required for each were recorded to assess follow-up event dynamics for this care modality. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up for 190 of the 255 patients (65 died at a mean follow-up of 12.6 years) was 13.0 years (median 13.6; range 0.3 to 28). At least one prosthetic event was experienced by 148 patients (58%), and 81 (32%) experienced at least one biologic event. Overall, patients experienced 3.8 times more prosthetic events than biologic events. Twenty-four (9%) patients experienced 35 implant failures. Overall survival rates at 20 years were 86% for prostheses, 15% survived free of any event, and 92% experienced survival free of implant failure (95% confidence interval). CONCLUSION: Anticipated and unanticipated prosthetic events occur throughout the life of the hybrid prosthesis. Prosthetic events significantly surpass (four times more) biologic events and occur significantly later in the follow-up. For this patient group, 8.6% (22/255) had implant-supported prostheses remade during follow-up in this patient population. These findings support the recommendation that prosthodontic care for missing teeth be thought of in a "chronic condition" context, recognizing that long-term outcome monitoring to provide realistic care expectations is important for demonstrating care value in oral health promotion.

Evaluation of fracture resistance in aqueous environment under dynamic loading of lithium disilicate restorative systems for posterior applications. Part 2.

PURPOSE: The goals of part 2 of the study presented here were 1) to assess whether there is a difference in failure mode of different thicknesses (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, and 0.5 mm) of anatomically standardized full contour monolithic lithium disilicate restorations for posterior teeth, and 2) to assess if there is a difference among various crown thicknesses when these restorations are subjected to dynamic load forces common for posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups (n = 10), each with a different thickness of anatomically appropriate all-ceramic crowns, were to be tested as established from the statistical analysis of the preliminary phase. Group 1: 2.0 mm; group 2: 1.5 mm; group 3: 1.0 mm; group 4: 0.5 mm. The specimens were adhesively luted to the corresponding die, and underwent dynamic cyclic loading (380 to 390 N) completely submerged in an aqueous environment until a failure was noted by graphic recording and continuous monitoring. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference of the fatigue cycles to failure among four groups (p < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis test). The mean number of cycles to fail for 2.0 mm specimens was 17 times more than the mean number of cycles to fail for 1.0 mm specimens and 1.5 times more than the mean number of cycles to fail for 1.5 mm specimens. The 0.5 mm specimens failed with one cycle of loading. A qualitative characteristic noted among the 2.0 mm specimens was wear of the area of indenter contact followed by shearing of the material and/or crack propagation. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, it may be reasonable to consider a crown thickness of 1.5 mm or greater for clinical applications of milled monolithic lithium disilicate crowns for posterior single teeth.

Mean Oral Cavity Organ-at-Risk Dose Predicts Opioid Use and Hospitalization during Radiotherapy for Patients with Head and Neck Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 75% of all head and neck cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy (RT). RT to the oral cavity results in acute and late adverse events which can be severe and detrimental to a patient's quality of life and function. The purpose of this study was to explore associations between RT dose to a defined oral cavity organ-at-risk (OAR) avoidance structure, provider- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), opioid use, and hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained outcomes using multivariable modeling. The study included 196 patients treated with RT involving the oral cavity for a head and neck tumor. A defined oral cavity OAR avoidance structure was used in all patients for RT treatment planning. Validated PROs were collected prospectively. Opioid use and hospitalization were abstracted electronically from medical records. RESULTS: Multivariable modeling revealed the mean dose to the oral cavity OAR was significantly associated with opioid use (p = 0.0082) and hospitalization (p = 0.0356) during and within 30 days of completing RT. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study may be valuable in RT treatment planning for patients with tumors of the head and neck region to reduce the need for opioid use and hospitalization during treatment.

Evaluation of fracture resistance in aqueous environment of four restorative systems for posterior applications. Part 1.

PURPOSE: The goals of this study were to: (1) establish a range of the performance of four restorative systems for posterior single-tooth crowns under single load to fracture submerged in an aqueous environment, (2) identify restorative system(s) of interest to be examined in the second study phase under sliding contact step-stress fatigue as full-contour anatomically appropriate single posterior tooth restoration(s), (3) establish a range for loading/testing for phase 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty specimens (n = 10/group) of 2 mm uniform thickness were tested. Group 1: monolithic lithium disilicate IPS e.max Press; group 2: IPS e.max ZirPress, 0.8 mm zirconia core with 1.2 mm pressed veneering porcelain; group 3: IPS e.max ZirPress, 0.4 mm zirconia core with 1.6 mm pressed veneering porcelain; group 4: IPS InLine PoM. Specimens were bonded to a block of polycast acrylic resin on a 30° sloped surface with resin cement. Specimens were axially single loaded to failure while submerged under water. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in failure load among the four restorative systems. Lithium disilicate showed a mean failure load similar to mean maximum posterior bite forces (743.1 ± 114.3 N). IPS e.max Zirpress with a 0.4 mm zirconia core exhibited the lowest mean failure load (371.4 ± 123.0 N). CONCLUSION: Fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate in an aqueous environment is promising and requires second phase testing to evaluate the potential of various thicknesses appropriate for posterior single tooth applications. Doubling the IPS e.max Zirpress zirconia core from 0.4 mm to 0.8 mm increased the fracture resistance of this restorative system threefold.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users. OBJECTIVES: This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by oral health professionals and offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-November 2011), EMBASE (1988-November 2011), CINAHL (1982-November 2011), Healthstar (1975-November 2011), ERIC (1967-November 2011), PsycINFO (1984-November 2011), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-November 2011), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-November 2011), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-November 2011), and Web of Science (1993-November 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from smoking or all tobacco use (for users of smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. The effect was summarised as an odds ratio, with correction for clustering where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using an inverse variance fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or in a community school or college setting. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions among smokeless tobacco (ST) users, and eight studies evaluated interventions among cigarette smokers, six of which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. All studies employed behavioral interventions and only one required pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling all 14 studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals can increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44 to 2.03) at six months or longer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 61%). Within the subgroup of interventions for smokers, heterogeneity was smaller (I² = 51%), but was largely attributable to a large study showing no evidence of benefit. Within this subgroup there were five studies which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. Pooling these showed clear evidence of benefit and minimal heterogeneity (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.35, 5 studies, I² = 3%) but this was a posthoc subgroup analysis. Amongst the studies in smokeless tobacco users the heterogeneity was also attributable to a large study showing no sign of benefit, possibly due to intervention spillover to control colleges; the other five studies indicated that interventions for ST users were effective (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in conjunction with an oral examination was a consistent intervention component that was also provided in some control groups.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition.

BACKGROUND: Management of individuals presenting with partial loss of teeth is a common task for dentists. Outcomes important to the management of missing teeth in the partially absent dentition should be systematically summarized. This review recognizes both the challenges associated with such a summarization and the critical nature of the information for patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different prostheses for the treatment of partially absent dentition in terms of the following outcomes: long-term success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 21 March 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to March 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to March 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted several authors to identify non-published trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods (including the design and materials used) of treating partial edentulism, with clinically relevant outcomes, were included in this review. Trials reporting only surrogate outcomes, such as plaque accumulation or gingival volume, were excluded from this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out the screening of eligible studies, assessment of dimensions of quality of trials, and data extraction. Results were expressed as mean differences for continuous data, risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for time-to-event data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-four per cent of these were assessed as being at high risk of bias and the remainder were at unclear risk of bias. The clinical heterogeneity among the included studies precluded any attempt at meta-analysis. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether one type of removable dental prosthesis (RDP) was better or worse than another. With fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), there was no evidence that high gold alloys are better or worse than other alloys, nor that gold alloys or frameworks are better or worse than titanium. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether zirconia is better or worse that other FDP materials, that ceramic abutments are better or worse than titanium, or that one cement was better or worse than another in retaining FDPs. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of FDPs and RDPs in patients with shortened dental arch or to determine the relative advantages of implant supported FDPs versus tooth/implant supported FDPs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on trials meeting the inclusion criteria for this review, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a particular method of tooth replacement for partially edentulous patients.

Survival of short implants is improved with greater implant length, placement in the mandible compared with the maxilla, and in nonsmokers.

PURPOSE/QUESTION: What is the 2-year estimated implant survival rate of short (<10 mm) dental implants installed in partially edentulous patients? SOURCE OF FUNDING: Information not available. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1: Good quality, patient-oriented evidence. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION GRADE: Grade B: Inconsistent or limited-quality, patient-oriented evidence.

Survival of short implants is improved with greater implant length, placement in the mandible compared with the maxilla, and in nonsmokers.

SELECTION CRITERIA: The authors conducted a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the period January 1980 to October 2009. This was supplemented by searching reference lists of literature obtained. There was no language restriction applied. Two authors reviewed the search yield for relevance, disagreement was resolved by consensus discussion, and the selected articles deemed relevant for full-text review were read by one reviewer. The relevant articles selected were judged against inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included studies were restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies. Only studies with partially edentulous applications of at least 5 implants shorter than 10 mm followed for more than 1 year were included. No (alumina)-zirconium implants or mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage or short implants used for cantilevered prostheses were included. A validity assessment using methodological criteria for cohort and RCTs was accomplished by 2 reviewers. KEY STUDY FACTOR: The focus of the review was to determine the prognosis of short (<10 mm) implants in the partially edentulous patient. The authors sought to identify important influences on survival rate by conducting subgroup analyses where the subgroups included individual implant lengths shorter than 10 mm, smoking, implants in the mandible versus maxilla, and bone augmentation procedures. The 2-year estimated survival rate was selected based on evidence suggesting that after 1 year the implant survival rate is considered to be constant, an important aspect for survival function estimation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To allow a pooled estimate of prognosis from multiple studies, the estimated failure rate per year and estimated implant survival rate after 2 years was determined for each study. The estimated failure rate per study was determined as a function of number of implant failures and total implant "exposure" time. Exposure in this context means the time an implant is in vivo and, hence, exposed to failure risk. Consequently, exposure time includes implants followed the entire study, those up to the time of failure, and those followed to a premature study end (eg, patient death, moving, refusal to continue). When study data were not provided separately for the short implants in a publication, a proportional exposure (short implants/total implants χ overall exposure time) was determined. The 2-year survival calculation made from the estimated failure rate assumed a constant rate of implant failure (considered to follow a Poisson distribution). Additional analyses sought to identify independent effects on failure based on implant surface topography (rough vs machined), maxilla versus mandible, smoking status, and augmentation. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were identified that met both the inclusion criteria and methodological requirements of the 1353 articles identified in the literature search. Of these 29 studies, 28 were prospective cohort studies and 1 was an RCT. The mean follow-up for the studies was 3.7 years, with a range from 1.6 to 8.1 years. There were 2611 short implants in the identified studies ranging in length from 5.0 mm to 9.5 mm. Table 1 provides the outcome data by implant length, including the number of implants in each group, the estimated annual failure rate (expressed as a percentage), and the 2-year estimated failure rate (expressed as a percentage). Overall, 5-mm implants were calculated to have a 2-year survival rate of 93%, whereas 9-mm implants had a 2-year survival rate of 98%. Additional analyses revealed that for all implant lengths, both rough and machined (smooth) implants had similar failure rates (0.008 and 0.010, respectively). Implants placed in the maxilla had a significantly greater failure rate than those placed in the mandible (0.010 and 0.003, respectively). Estimated failure rates in studies that excluded smokers were twice as low as those seen in studies that included heavy smokers (0.004 and 0.080, respectively). No significant difference in estimated failure rate was seen for implants placed with simultaneous augmentation compared with no augmentation (0.007 and 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this systematic review are important in that collectively they support consideration of placement of short implants in partially edentulous patients. The estimated data showed a tendency for improved survival rate with increasing implant length, implant placement in the mandible compared with the maxilla, and for implants placed in nonsmokers.

Implant location and radiotherapy are the only factors linked to 2-year implant failure.

SUBJECTS: The subjects in this retrospective case series were derived from a review of 700 patient files within the implant practice of the Department of Periodontology, University Hospital, Catholic University of Leuven. Inclusion criteria were met by 412 patients (240 females, 172 males) receiving a total of 1514 Nobel Biocare dental implants. These patients were included based on data availability for the time period 2 years after abutment surgery (considered to represent late implant failure). KEY EXPOSURE/STUDY FACTOR: Given the concern of the authors to assess the probability of late implant failure among clinic patients with certain local and systemic factors, the potential factors were multiple. The local factors included the following: implant length and diameter, bone quality and quantity, insertion site, type of edentulism, antibiotic use perioperatively, dehiscence and/or perforation of the site during surgery, and stability at insertion (measured by Periotest values). The related health and behavioral factors included the following: medications, smoking (<10 cigarettes/day, 10-20 cigarettes/day, >20 cigarettes/day), hypertension, ischemic cardiac problems, coagulation anomalies, gastric ulcers, thyroid disorders, hypercholesterolemia, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes (types 1 and 2), Crohn's disease, and chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was described as "late implant failure." The current study, which follows a similar study on early implant failure,(1) aims to identify negative influences on maintenance of integration. The authors used the clinical experience related to the 412 patients with 1514 implants to identify whether the observed failure rates were influenced by local and systemic factors. Failure was defined as "late" when occurring between abutment connection surgery and 2 years after this date. Patients/implants that were not available for this interval of time were not included. However, even when records were available, not all patient records provided all data sought. MAIN RESULTS: Regarding local factors, the authors reported that implant diameter and location were relevant to late implant loss, whereas implant length was not (P value = .01, = .34, respectively; univariate generalized estimating equation [GEE] logistic regression). Regarding implant diameter, significantly more loss was noted for 5.00-mm implants when compared with the 4.00-mm or 4.75-mm implants. Failure related to location revealed that the maxilla compared with the mandible, posterior jaws compared with anterior jaws, and the posterior maxilla compared with all other oral locations were associated with more late failures (Table 1). Assessment of systemic factors revealed radiotherapy to be related to more late implant loss (P = .003). Neither systemic disease nor smoking exposure was associated with late failure. CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that late implant failure was influenced by the local factor "implant location" and the systemic factor "radiotherapy." Neither smoking nor systemic health factors were found to adversely influence implant integration from abutment connection through 2 years' performance.

Viewpoint: Periprosthetic joint infection and dental antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines.

The purpose of this viewpoint is to provide a framework that is used within the Mayo Clinic to align recommendations from infectious disease experts, dental specialists, and orthopedic surgeons with regards to need for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to invasive dental procedures.

Improving the effectiveness of tobacco use cessation (TUC).

This paper includes an update of a Cochrane systematic review on tobacco use cessation (TUC) in dental settings as well as narrative reviews of possible approaches to TUC and a more detailed discussion of referral for specialist TUC services. On the basis of these reviews we conclude that interventions for tobacco users in the dental setting increase the odds of quitting tobacco. However, the evidence is derived largely from patients using smokeless tobacco. Pharmacotherapy (such as nicotine replacements, bupropion and varenicline) is recommended for TUC in medical settings but has received little assessment in dental applications, although such evidence to date is promising. Whether the dental setting or referral to specialist TUC services is the most effective strategy to help people to quit tobacco use is unclear. An effective specialist service providing best available TUC care alone may not be the answer. Clearly, such services should be both accessible and convenient for tobacco users. Closer integration of specialist services with referrers would also be advantageous in order to guide and support oral health professionals make their referral and to maximise follow-up of referred tobacco users. Future research direction may consider investigating the most effective components of TUC in the dental settings and community-based trials should be a priority. Pharmacotherapy, particularly nicotine replacement therapy, should be more widely examined in dental settings. We also recommend that various models of referral to external and competent in-house TUC specialist services should be examined with both experimental and qualitative approaches. In addition to overall success of TUC, important research questions include facilitators and barriers to TUC in dental settings, preferences for specialist referral, and experiences of tobacco users attempting to quit, with dental professionals or specialist services, respectively.