Early and late implant loss in a university-based periodontal setting: A retrospective analysis on 1821 patients and 2639 implants over a period of 18 years.

The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the implant failure rate, not due to peri-implantitis, in periodontally compromised patients rehabilitated with at least one dental implant placed in a specialist university setting over the last 18 years. Records of patients receiving dental implants at the Department of Periodontology, University of Bern, Switzerland, between 2005 and 2022 were analyzed. Data on 1821 patients with 2639 implants were retrieved. Fifty-nine patients experienced implant loss (rate at patient level: 3.2%) out of which 2.1% were early and 1.1% late implant losses, respectively. The majority of the 59 patients were males (68%) and 27.1% were smokers. Eight mm implants were lost with the highest rate (42.4%) followed by 10 mm implants (31.8%). The rate of lost maxillary implants was more than twice as high compared with that of mandibular implants (69.7 vs. 30.3%). Within the study limitations, the implant failure rate in this cohort of patients enrolled in regular supportive periodontal and peri-implant care, was low.

Lesiones perirradiculares asociadas a primeros molares superiores tratados endodónticamente: estudio a través de tomografías computadas / Periradicular lesions associated with endodontically treated maxillary first molars: study through computed tomography

Objetivos: Estudiar con tomografías computadas de haz cónico (CBCT) las lesiones perirradiculares de primeros molares superiores tratados endodónticamente; evaluar la lo- calización y, en los que tenían lesión en la raíz mesiovestibu- lar (MV), evaluar la frecuencia del conducto MV2. Materiales y métodos: A partir de una muestra de 179 tomografías, que incluían primeros molares superiores, se seleccionaron y analizaron aquellas en las cuales estos ha- bían recibido un tratamiento endodóntico previo, presentaban lesiones perirradiculares y conservaban una restauración co- ronaria. Las variables analizadas fueron: la localización de áreas radiolúcidas compatibles con lesiones perirradiculares de origen endodóntico y la correlación entre diferentes loca- lizaciones y la calidad del tratamiento realizado (adecuado, defectuoso o sin tratamiento). Los datos fueron analizados mediante la prueba de chi-cuadrado y la prueba de Spearman. Resultados: De las 179 CBCT que incluían primeros molares superiores, 90 reunían las condiciones requeridas. La frecuencia de las lesiones perirradiculares fue significativa- mente mayor en la raíz MV al compararla con las raíces disto- vestibular y palatina (p<0,05). El conducto MV1 presentó un tratamiento adecuado en todos los casos. El conducto MV2 recibió un tratamiento adecuado en 4 casos (4,44%), defec- tuoso en 4 casos (4,44%) y no tratado en 82 casos (91,1%); con una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p<0,05). Conclusiones: En la muestra analizada, la localización de lesiones perirradiculares postratamiento endodóntico en primeros molares superiores se encontró con mayor frecuencia asociada a la raíz mesiovestibular, donde en la mayoría de los casos el con- ducto MB2 no fue tratado o presentó un tratamiento defectuoso (AU)

Aim: To study with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) the periradicular lesions of maxillary first molars with endodontical treatment; to evaluate its localization and, in those with a mesiobuccal root (MB) injury, assess the fre- quency of the MB2 root canal. Materials and methods: From a sample of 179 tomog- raphies (CBCT) that included maxillary first molars, those in which they had received previous endodontic treatment, pre- sented periradicular lesions and had a coronary restoration were selected and analyzed. The analyzed variables were: localization of radiolucent areas compatible with periradic- ular lesions of endodontic origin and the correlation between different localizations and quality of the performed treatment (adequate, defective, or untreated). Data were analyzed by the chi-square test and the Spearman test. Results: Of the 179 CBCT that included maxillary first molars, 90 met the required conditions. The frequency of periradicular lesions was significantly higher in the MB root when compared with distobuccal and palatal roots (P<0,05). The MB1 canal presented an adequate treatment in all cas- es. The MB2 canal received adequate treatment in 4 cases (4.44%), a defective one in 4 cases (4.44%) and was untreated in 82 cases (91.1%). The differences among these frequencies were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions: In the analyzed sample, the localization of periradicular lesions after endodontic treatment in maxillary first molars was associated more frequently with the mesio- buccal root in which in the majority of cases the MB2 canal was untreated or presented a defective treatment

Retratamientos endodónticos: una realidad que preocupa / Endodontic retreatment: a worrying reality

Las evaluaciones radiográficas de tratamientos endodón- ticos realizadas por graduados muestran un alto porcentaje de procedimientos incorrectos. Esta circunstancia lleva a la rea- lización de un elevado número de retratamientos ortógrados y retrógrados, con los inconvenientes y desventajas que conlle- va recurrir a una reintervención endodóntica. Es responsabili- dad de los profesionales, docentes y autoridades universitarias y gubernamentales revertir esta situación que afecta a la salud bucal de la sociedad. En el presente editorial se proponen di- ferentes alternativas para intentar modificar este preocupante panorama (AU)

Radiographic evaluations of endodontic treatments per- formed by graduates show a high percentage of incorrect procedures. This circumstance leads to the performance of a high number of orthograde and retrograde retreatments, with the inconveniences and disadvantages that entails resorting to an endodontic reintervention. It is the responsibility of pro- fessionals, teachers, university and government authorities to reverse this situation that affects the oral health of society. In this editorial, different alternatives are proposed to try to modify this worrying outlook (AU)

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC). OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth.  Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing  with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2).  Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.

Management of systemic risk factors ahead of dental implant therapy: A beard well lathered is half shaved.

As the most successful therapy for missing teeth, dental implant has become increasingly prevalent around the world. A lot of papers have reported diverse local risk factors affecting the success and survival rate of dental implants, either for a short or a long period. However, there are also many types of systemic disorders or relatively administrated medicine that may jeopardize the security and success of dental implant treatment. Additionally, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic also poses a challenge to dental implant clinicians. Some of these risk factors are clinically common but to some extent unfamiliar to dentists, thus optimal measurements are often lacking when they occur in dental clinics. In this review, we analyze potential systemic risk factors that may affect the success rate of dental implants. Some of them may affect bone mineral density or enhance the likelihood of local infection, thus impeding osseointegration. Others may even systemically increase the risk of the surgery and threaten patients' life. In order to help novices receive high-risk patients who need to get dental implant treatment in a more reasonable way, we accordingly review recent research results and clinical experiments to discuss promising precautions, such as stopping drugs that impact bone mineral density or the operation, and addressing any perturbations on vital signs.

A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation.

Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

Five year evaluation of the complications observed in porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns placed at a university hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of complications in crowns cemented over a 5-year period in a tertiary care hospital and also to report the survival of these crowns. METHODS: The retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from March 2017 to March 2018 and comprised porcelain fused-to-metal crowns placed on the anterior or posterior teeth that were fabricated at the institutional laboratory and were placed in institutional dental clinics in the preceding 5 years. Porcelain-fused to-metal The crowns were clinically and radio-graphically evaluated in a duration of two months for presence/absence of complications. Factors associated with the failure of the crowns, their survival and the impact of covariates, like gender, flossing and bruxism, on the survival time were determined. Data was analysed using SPSS 22. RESULTS: There were 150 crowns related to 107 patients who had a mean age of 45.0±11.4 years. The most common complication observed was open proximal contacts 9(6%) followed by de-cementation 8(5.3%), porcelain chipping 9(6%) and abutment fracture 2(1.3%). The 5-year survival rate of the crowns was 127(84.7%). The mean follow-up time was 57.2±1.0 months. Overall, year-wise survival of PFM crowns for one year till five years was 147 (98%), 144 (96%), 135 (90%), 130 (86%) and 119 (79%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns had a high 5-year survival rate. Open proximal contacts represented the most common complication.

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.

Survival and success of implants in a private periodontal practice: a 10 year retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: To assess long-term results of implants (XiVE/Frialit-2 Synchro) in a private periodontal practice according to survival and success rates (biological and technical complications) and to detect possible influencing factors, retrospectively. METHODS: Implant placement of at least one implant took place 10 years ±6 months before clinical and radiographic re-examination. Incidence of implant loss as main and incidence of mucositis/ peri-implantitis as secondary outcome were detected. Also, patient-related and implant-related influencing factors were determined by regression analyses. RESULTS: 100 patients (59.0% female) with 242 implants were included into analysis. Survival rate was 94.0% (XiVE: 97.7%; Frialit-2-Synchro: 66.7%). Mucositis was found in 77.6% of all patients, moderate/severe peri-implantitis in 16.3%. In logistic regression analyses statistically significant influencing factors for implant loss was implant type (p < 0.001), for mucositis a wider implant diameter (p = 0.0438) and a high modified Plaque Index (p = 0.0253), for peri-implantits number of implants per patient (p = 0.0075) and a wider implant diameter (p = 0.0079). Technical complications were found in 47 implants (19.4%). CONCLUSIONS: XiVE implants showed a high survival rate over a 10-year follow-up, on the other hand Frialit-2 Synchro implants had worse survival rates. Success rates regarding biological complications are in line with other implant systems.

Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

Background and objectives: To compare the medium- to long-term mechanical behavior of overdentures with two different retention systems: overdentures with Locator® axial retention, and vertical insertion overdentures with bar retention, used to rehabilitate edentulous maxillar. Material and Methods: This prospective study assessed patients presenting complete maxillary edentulism, rehabilitated by means of implant-supported overdentures (n = 20), 10 with Locator® axial retention (ODA group) and 10 with overdentures on bars (ODB group). Patients also completed a questionnaire to determine their satisfaction with treatment. Results: The mean follow-up time in both groups was 11.4 years, with follow-up times in both groups ranging from 5 to 14 years. The ODA group suffered mechanical complications such as retention loss, need for nylon retention insert changes, resin fracture, and need for relining. In the ODB group, prosthetic dental wear, screw loosening, and complete prosthetic failure were more common. A total of 19 implants failed (23.8%); of these, 11 were in the ODA group (failure rate = 27.5%) and eight in the ODB group (failure rate = 20%). The patient satisfaction questionnaire obtained a mean score of 7.9 out of 10 in the ODA group, and 9.75 in the ODB group. Conclusions: in rehabilitations of edentulous maxillar by means of implant-supported overdentures, both the systems assessed were shown to be effective in the medium to long term. Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the treatments received.

Evaluation of Bond Failure Rate of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded with Green Gloo-Two Way Color Changes Adhesive: A Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Bonding is an important step in fixed orthodontic mechanotherapy. Many new materials introduced an adhesive for bonding. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical bond failure rate of orthodontic brackets bonded with green glue: two way color changes adhesive and transbond XT adhesive paste. METHODS: Eighteen male patients with a mean age of 16 years were included in the study. Convenience sampling technique was used to select the sample for this study. The split-mouth design was used to bond 360 brackets by one operator and both adhesives were used in each patient. Bond failure rates were estimated with respect to bonding procedure, dental arch, tooth type (incisor, canine, and premolar). The results were evaluated using the chisquare test. Kaplan - Meier analysis and the log rank test were used to estimate the survival rate of the brackets. Bracket failure rates for each system were analyzed, and failure causes as reported by the patients and the quadrant of each tooth in which brackets failed were recorded. RESULTS: The bond failure rate was 5.00% and 4.44% for green gloo and transbond XT group. No significant difference was found in the bond failure rate between transbond XT and Green gloo group. No significant difference was found in the bond failure rate between the two groups, in relation to right and left side and the type of teeth. CONCLUSION: Green gloo adhesive can be effectively used to bond orthodontic brackets.

Risk factors associated with short dental implant success: a long-term retrospective evaluation of patients followed up for up to 9 years.

This multicenter study aimed to identify the different implant- and patient-related risk factors for long-term short dental implant success. Through a retrospective chart review of three centers, patient information regarding demographic variables, smoking habits, history of periodontitis, systemic diseases, and medications in addition to the parameters for short implant placement including implant manufacturer, design, anatomical location, diameter and length, and type of placement was collected. For statistical analysis, univariate regression models were used at the implant and patient levels. A total of 460 short implants placed in 199 patients followed up for up to 9 years were reviewed. Survival rates of the short implants were 95.86% and 92.96% and success rates were 90% and 83.41% for implant- and patient-based analysis, respectively. Peri-implantitis was reported as the primary cause of short dental implant failure (34/46, 73.91%). Univariate regression models revealed that female sex was strongly related to short implant success. In addition, smoking and history of periodontitis were found to have a significant negative influence on short implant success at the implant and patient levels. Taken together, these results support the use of short implants as a predictable longterm treatment option; however, smoking and history of periodontitis are suggested to be the potential risk factors for short implant success. Therefore, clinicians need to assess these potential risk factors and make treatment decisions accordingly.

Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.

BACKGROUND: Resin-based composite (RBC) is currently accepted as a viable material for the restoration of caries for posterior permanent teeth requiring surgical treatment. Despite the fact that the thermal conductivity of the RBC restorative material closely approximates that of natural tooth structure, postoperative hypersensitivity is sometimes still an issue. Dental cavity liners have historically been used to protect the pulp from the toxic effects of some dental restorative materials and to prevent the pain of thermal conductivity by placing an insulating layer between restorative material and the remaining tooth structure. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of using dental cavity liners in the placement of Class I and Class II resin-based composite posterior restorations in permanent teeth in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 12 November 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 12 November 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 November 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 November 2018) and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 12 November 2018). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the use of liners under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent teeth (in both adults and children). We included both parallel and split-mouth designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We utilized standard methodological procedures prescribed by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. Two review authors screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion against the review inclusion criteria. We conducted risk of bias assessments and data extraction independently and in duplicate. Where information was unclear we contacted study authors for clarification. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies, recruiting over 700 participants, compared the use of dental cavity liners to no liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.Seven studies evaluated postoperative hypersensitivity measured by various methods. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. There was inconsistent evidence regarding postoperative hypersensitivity (either measured using cold response or patient-reported), with a benefit shown at some, but not all, time points (low-quality evidence).Four trials measured restoration longevity. Two of the studies were judged to be at high risk and two at unclear risk of bias. No difference in restoration failure rates were shown at 1 year follow-up, with no failures reported in either group for three of the four studies; the fourth study had a risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 15.00) (low-quality evidence). Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at 2 years follow-up and, again, no failures were shown in either group.No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistent, low-quality evidence regarding the difference in postoperative hypersensitivity subsequent to placing a dental cavity liner under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth in adults or children 15 years or older. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate a difference in the longevity of restorations placed with or without dental cavity liners.

Ten-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures-A prospective pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective pilot study was to evaluate the concept of one single implant placed in the edentulous mandible to retain a complete denture with regard to implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance over an observation period of 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven edentulous patients were included and received one implant in the midline of the mandible. Five implants healed submerge and were uncovered 2 months later. The other six healed un-submerged and were provided with a healing abutment 4 mm in height thus moderately loaded. All denture bases were temporarily relined during the healing period and two months later provided with a ball attachment for implant retention. Implant related parameters and prosthodontic maintenance interventions were assessed four weeks after implant loading and then annually. RESULTS: Over a mean observation period of 108.9 months (35-136 months), no implant was lost. The most frequent prosthetic maintenance intervention was activation of the matrix due to loss of retention, followed by exchange of the female part. Fracture of the denture base in the attachment area was a frequent complication and occurred in 8 cases. Two denture bases fractured twice. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this prospective pilot study, the concept of a single midline implant to retain a mandibular complete denture is promising over ten years for edentulous patients. Regular recall visits should be scheduled due to frequent maintenance interventions. Further research on this topic with a larger study cohort is needed.

Ten-year survival of immediate-loading implants in fully edentulous mandibles in the Japanese population: a multilevel analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term clinical results of and risk factors for immediate-loading implant treatment of completely edentulous mandibles. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 220 implants in 52 patients who received immediate-loading implants in fully edentulous mandibles. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, log-rank tests, and multilevel mixed-effects parametric survival analysis was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen of implants in seven patients failed, and the 10-year cumulative implant survival rate was 93.9 % and significantly (p=0.049) higher in women than in men. None of the predictor variables were significantly associated with implant survival, although sex tended to be associated with implant survival. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate-loading implant treatment for completely edentulous mandibles had acceptable clinical results in the long term. Although we could not identify significant risk factors, we established a multilevel mixed-effects parametric survival analysis with the immediate-loading implant survival data.

Did malpractice claims for failed dental implants decrease after introduction of CBCT in Finland?

OBJECTIVES: To examine the role of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in preventing failures in implant treatment. We hypothesize that the number of malpractice claims related to dental implant treatment would decrease after the first CBCT device came available in 2002 in Finland. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data concerning malpractice claims related to dental implant treatment during the years 1997-2011 were collected from the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre (N = 330 subjects). We selected the cases that might have benefitted from the use of CBCT examination. These cases (n = 131) led to financial compensation due to permanent inferior alveolar nerve injury, improper implant position, or insufficient amount of bone for the implant. The annual total number of inserted dental implants, CBCT devices, and CBCT examinations in Finland were drawn from the national registers and used to estimate the impact of CBCT in preventing treatment failures. RESULTS: The most common reason for all failures (n = 268 implants) was an improper implant position (46.3%). The most common area of malpractices was upper front teeth (34%). We have noticed a fall in the rate of compensable malpractice cases concerning implant failure, simultaneously with CBCT technology emerging on the market. CONCLUSIONS: There may be an association between the increasing availability of CBCT equipment and the reducing frequency of compensable malpractice claims. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is possible that the use of CBCT may result in fewer compensable malpractice claims.

Influence of Different Implant Geometry in Clinical Longevity and Maintenance of Marginal Bone: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess, through a systematic review, the influence of different implant geometries on clinical longevity and maintenance of marginal bone tissue. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, limited to studies written in English from 1996 to 2017 using specific search strategies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dental implants and their geometries were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS: From the 4006 references identified by the search, 24 were considered eligible for full-text analysis, after which 10 studies were included in this review. A similar behavior of marginal bone loss between tapered and cylindrical geometries was observed; however, implants that had micro-threads in the neck presented a slight decrease of marginal bone loss compared to implants with straight or smooth neck. Success and survival rates were high, with cylindrical implants presenting higher success and survival rates than tapered ones. CONCLUSIONS: Implant geometry seems to have little influence on marginal bone loss (MBL) and survival and success rates after 1 year of implant placement; however, the evidence in this systematic review was classified as very low due to limitations such as study design, sample size, and publication bias. Thus, more well-designed RCTs should be conducted to provide evidence regarding the influence of implant geometry on MBL and survival and success rates after 1 year of implant placement.

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.

Comparative study of immediate loading on short dental implants and conventional dental implants in the posterior mandible: A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Immediate dental implant loading has been investigated with favorable results. However, short implants have not been investigated in this treatment option. This study compared the clinical outcomes and survival rates of immediately loaded short and conventional length dental implants in replacing mandibular molar teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six implants (23 short dental implants and 23 conventional dental implants) in 46 patients were included in the study. Provisional computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic crowns were cemented to the abutments and immediately loaded. Several clinical parameters were recorded and statistically analyzed at 4-month- and 1-year-follow-up. RESULTS: Two short implants lost integration, and one conventional implant failed. No statistically significant difference between the two implant types was found (P = 1.00). Minor complications were recorded; three provisional crown fractures were found in the short implant group and two provisional crown fractures in the conventional implant group. There was no significant difference in implant stability quotient values for short or conventional implants between baseline (short: 73.86 ± 2.38, conventional: 75.05 ± 3.26, P = .088), 4 months after loading (short: 72.37 ± 1.35, conventional: 72.89 ± 1.87, P = .165), and 1 year after loading (short: 74.60 ± 2.03, conventional: 75.35 ± 2.66, P = .296). The mean marginal bone level loss 4 months after loading was 0.28 ± 0.29 mm for short implants and 0.25 ± 0.25 mm for conventional implants (P = .73), and at 1 year after loading was 0.33 ± 0.47 mm for short implants and 0.26 ± 0.27 mm for conventional implants (P = .554); there was no statistical difference between the two implant types. CONCLUSION: The immediate loading of short implants is comparable to conventional length implants in terms of implant survival, marginal bone level change, and implant stability quotient value.

Analysis of implant loss risk factors especially in maxillary molar location: A retrospective study of 6977 implants in Chinese individuals.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge of the potential risk factors associated with implant loss is crucial for dental clinicians, but the opinions about the risk factors are still diverse and controversial. PURPOSE: This retrospective study assessed the risk factors associated with implant loss, especially that in the maxillary molar location. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2015 to March 2017, 4338 Chinese patients received 6977 implants at Nanjing Stomatological Hospital. Information on patient age, gender, bone grafting procedure, implant location, length and diameter, and the records of lost implants were obtained. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to conduct a survival function analysis. Chi-square test and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used to identify risk factors related to implant loss. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rate (CSR) after 0-32 months of observation period for all implants was 97.76%, and the CSR for maxillary molar implants was 97.00%. Maxillary molar implants showed a significantly lower CSR than the other implants (P < .05). Male sex, short implants (<10 mm) were considered as risk factors for implant loss. However, male sex and bone grafting procedure were regarded as risk factors for maxillary molar implant loss, which was slightly different from the result of all implants. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex, short implants (<10 mm) and maxillary molar location were considered as potential risk factors for implant loss, whereas male sex and bone grafting procedure were significantly associated with implant loss in maxillary molar location.