Assessment and aesthetic impact of a long-term vertical discrepancy between the single anterior maxillary implant-supported crown and adjacent teeth: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the vertical discrepancy between implant-supported crowns and adjacent teeth in the maxillary anterior region at least 8 years after implant placement and to evaluate the influence of this discrepancy on the level of aesthetic awareness of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 23 adult individuals evaluated at least 8 years after placement of an implant-supported central or lateral single tooth-fixed partial denture. Patients had their crowns delivered at a mean age of 47.8 years (range: 18.9-65.8). The vertical discrepancy was measured by comparing initial and follow-up periapical radiographs using the implant as a stable structure. The patients' satisfaction with their anterior teeth condition and awareness of the possible vertical problem were evaluated using a questionnaire. The aesthetic outcome and patient awareness were related to the objective measurement of the vertical discrepancy. RESULTS: The implant showed a mean infraocclusion of 0.62 mm (range: 0.15-1.63 mm). The vertical discrepancy was not associated with the patient's gender, age at implant placement, and duration between initial and recall radiograph. Patients were generally satisfied with the long-term aesthetic outcome of their smile (mean: 3.9 on a 1-5 scale, 1 unsatisfied, and 5 completely satisfied). Out of 23 patients, 8 noticed the implant infraocclusion and 4 of them found the problem severe enough to be willing to improve the situation. The amount of vertical discrepancy was not associated with the patient's perception of the discrepancy and the pink aesthetic score. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported crowns in the anterior region may suffer infraocclusion over the long term. The amount of vertical discrepancy was not dependent on the gender and age of the patient. Patients were generally satisfied with the aesthetic result of the restoration. The amount of vertical discrepancy, at least in the range we have measured, was not perceived by the patients as a complication.

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease.

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri-implant complications in 326 short and ultra-short implants. Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 140 patients with (PP) and without (NPP) a history of periodontal disease. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3-year recall appointments. The 8.0, 6.0 and 5.0 mm-length implants placed in PP and NPP were respectively 43.75% and 38.46%, 35.10% and 34.19%, 21.15% and 27.35%; 325 implants (one early failure) were rehabilitated with single crowns in 139 patients. Overall implant survival after 3 years of follow-up was 97.55%, 98.08% and 96.61% for PP and NPP (p = 0.46). Crestal bone level variations were not statistically different among PP and NPP; 15.41% of implants presented signs of mucositis, 14.71% and 16.67% in PP and NPP (p = 0.64). Setting the threshold for bone loss at 2 mm after 36 months, peri-implantitis prevalence was 2.2%, 1.96% and 2.63% in PP and NPP (p = 0.7). Overall implant success was 82.39%, 83.33% and 80.7% for PP and NPP (p = 0.55). Short-term outcomes suggest that short and ultra-short locking-taper implants can successfully be restored with single crowns in the posterior jaws both in PP and NPP.

Assessment of short dental implants restored with single-unit nonsplinted restorations.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the survival rate of short (≤9 mm) implants restored with single-unit, nonsplinted crowns after an average follow-up of 37 months (21-94 months). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-one implants placed in 168 patients (74 men, 94 women, aged 34-87 years, mean = 61 years). Implant lengths were 6 (n = 16), 8 (n = 166), 8.5 (n = 2), or 9 mm (n = 34). The implant diameters ranged from 3.7 to 5.6 mm. Implants were placed in the maxillary (n = 44) and mandibular arches (n = 176). RESULTS: Survival rate was 94.1% (maxilla [88.6%] and mandible [96.0%]) and 12 early failures (first 4 months) and 1 late failure (4.5 years in the maxillary molar region) observed. Of the 12 early failures, 4 were in the maxilla (2 premolars and 2 molars) and 8 in the mandible (2 premolars and 6 molars). The early failures were 11 implants of 8 mm long and a 9-mm implant. Smoking cigarettes, diabetes mellitus, and bone augmentation procedures were not associated with implant failure significantly (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Survival rate of short implants restored with single-unit, nonsplinted restorations over an average period of 37 months was favorable and comparable with longer implants.

Comparison of nonsurgical root canal treatment and single-tooth implants.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this review was to compare the differences between nonsurgical root canal treatment and single-tooth implants. With the emerging field of implant dentistry gaining acceptance, the choice to retain a diseased tooth through the use of root canal therapy or extract it and replace the tooth with an implant-supported crown has become controversial. Many practitioners consider the single-tooth implant as a reasonable alternative to the preservation of a diseased tooth. METHODS: An extensive search of the dental literature was accomplished to identify publications related to the differences in root canal therapy and dental implants. Several comparative studies were also considered. RESULTS: The treatment modalities were reviewed with respect to outcome measures and study design, success/failure, functional rehabilitation and psychological differences, complications related to treatment, cost differences, and factors influencing treatment planning considerations. CONCLUSIONS: With the reviewed information in hand, the practitioner should be better prepared to determine which treatment option is most appropriate for each individual patient.