Epidemiology of Implant Mortality Disparity Among Intraoral Positions and Prosthesis Types.

PURPOSE: To examine the disparity of single-crown implant failure with a similar loss of the splinted prosthesis in differing anatomical locations while controlling for other demographic and clinical variables that may confound the relationship between prosthesis types and implant loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was designed to include patients treated with dental implants from 2003 to 2014. The variables included age, sex, systemic disease, bone graft, implant placement date, position of dental implant, length of dental implant, diameter of dental implant, loading time, type of prosthesis, type of opposing occlusion, latest check date, and survival or loss of the dental implant. The demographic and clinical variables' influence on the survival of dental implants was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The position and diameter were adjusted for the accurate estimation of the relationship between the prosthesis type and survival of the dental implant with the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: A total of 1,151 dental implants from 403 patients were ascertained. After adjusting for the confounding effect of position and diameter, single-crown prostheses were 38.1 (95% CI: 15.1-118) times more likely to be lost than the connected-type prostheses. For single-crown implants, the waiting time for osseointegration before loading was the highest for the maxillary molar position and the lowest for the mandibular molar position (P < .0001), while the most frequent implant loss occurred in the maxillary anterior area, and the second frequent area was the maxillary molar position; the lowest occurrence of implant loss was for the mandibular molar position. This disparity was statistically significant (P = .0271). CONCLUSION: Despite the high survival rates of endosseous implants as a whole, since the variation of implant loss was observed among the different anatomical positions for single-crown implants, special attention has to be given to the maxillary anterior and maxillary molar positions. A longer healing time assuming compensation for disadvantageous bone quality was not directly effective in increasing implant longevity in the vulnerable positions.

The Up-to-14-Year Survival and Complication Burden of 256 TiUnite Implants Supporting One-Piece Cast Abutment/Metal-Ceramic Implant-Supported Single Crowns.

PURPOSE: To assess the estimated cumulative survival (ECS) and explore the technical and biologic complications of 256 TiUnite implants (Nobel Biocare) supporting one-piece cast abutment/metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) in situ for up to 14 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective sequentially recruited cohort of 207 patients received 256 metal-ceramic ISCs on TiUnite implants between 2001 and 2014. All but 24 patients with 27 crowns were clinically evaluated between January 2014 and April 2015 in conjunction with or in addition to their tailored maintenance program. Radiographs were obtained, and any previously recorded treatments associated with the crowns were tabulated. The ECS and standard errors were calculated with the life table actuarial method and Greenwood's formula, respectively. The log rank test was applied to assess differences between anterior and posterior crowns. Complication incidence, severity, and economic burden, measured in time/cost accounting units (TAUs), were tallied and compared descriptively. Independent groups were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test and related groups with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. RESULTS: The mean clinical service time of the crowns was 5.61 years (44 ≥ 10 years). The 14-year ECS was 95.95% ± 3.20% with no significant difference between anterior and posterior prostheses. Only seven implants lost marginal bone ≥ one thread from the time of crown insertion. There were 30 nonterminal complications (16 biologic, 14 mechanical). The associated economic burden was low (n = 35 TAUs). CONCLUSION: High gold-alloy one-piece cast abutment/metal-ceramic ISCs on TiUnite implants exhibited excellent longevity and few complications over 14 years.

An Up-to-15-Year Comparison of the Survival and Complication Burden of Three-Unit Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Implant-Supported Single Crowns.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the outcomes and economic complication burden of three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (TFDPs) and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) provided to a sequential cohort in a specialist prosthodontic practice over a 15-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sequential patients requiring replacement of a single missing tooth between 1996 and 2010 with a metal-ceramic three-unit TFDP (n = 145 patients, n = 174 prostheses) or ISC (n = 174 patients, n = 220 prostheses) were included. Prostheses subjectively judged at insertion to have an unfavorable 10-year prognosis (17 TFDPs, 0 ISCs) were removed from statistical analyses. The estimated cumulative survival (ECS) was calculated with the life table actuarial method and standard errors calculated with the Greenwood formula. Differences in outcomes between all prostheses and those replacing only anterior or only posterior teeth were assessed with the log rank test. Complication incidence, severity, and economic burden, measured in time/cost accounting units (TAUs), were tallied and compared descriptively. RESULTS: The 15-year ECS did not differ for 112 TFDPs (92.75% ± 3.28%) and 81 ISCs (95.95% ± 2.92%) replacing posterior teeth. However, the 15-year ECS was significantly greater for 139 ISCs (93.33% ± 6.44%) than for 45 TFDPs (82.82% ± 6.50%) replacing anterior teeth. The economic burden of nonterminal complications for both prostheses was low (mean = 0.3 and 0.2 TAUs per prosthesis for TFDPs and ISCs, respectively). This equated to 3 TAUs/100 years in clinical service and 4 TAUs/100 years in clinical service for the TFDPs and ISCs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The survival of three-unit TFDPs and ISCs over 15 years was not statistically different when replacing posterior teeth, but ISCs survived significantly better when replacing anterior teeth. The complication rates of the TFDPs and ISCs were similar, but the economic burden for the TFDPs was greater.

Use of implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles among prosthodontists in Sweden.

The aim of this study was to investigate the production of mandibular implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses among prosthodontic specialists in Sweden and to compare the results with findings in a similar study made in 2001 (17). Questionnaires regarding treatment with mandibular implant prostheses during 20011 were mailed to all specialists in prosthodontics in Sweden (n = 156, according to available data). Of the 156 questionnaires, 129 (83%) were returned and of those 114 were completed. The reported number of treatments with mandibular implant-supported prostheses varied much among the specialists. Fixed implant prostheses were more common than overdentures (means 11 and 3, median values 8 and 2, respectively). However, the range was large for both alternatives. Ten (9%) of the specialists reported no treatment with fixed implant prostheses while 29 (25%) had not made any implant overdenture during 2011. The most common anchorage system for overdentures in 2011 (as well as in 2001) was two un-splinted implants with ball attachments or Locator abutments. The most common reasons for choosing overdenture treatment instead of a fixed implant prosthesis in 2011 were the reduced cost and the patient's main wish to improve denture retention. A majority of the prosthodontists (58%) reported that patients with implant overdentures were as satisfied as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses, whereas 40% claimed they were less satisfied. Two respondents (2%) considered that overdenture patients were more satisfied than those with a fixed prosthesis. It can be concluded that the general attitude among Swedish prosthodontists towards implant overdentures has not changed much during the 10-year period between the present and the previous investigation.An overdenture is still a seldom-used option in implant treatment of patients with edentulous mandibles in Sweden. Instead, a fixed implant-supported prosthesis continues to be the preferred option,

Factors influencing edentulous patients' preferences for prosthodontic treatment.

The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing edentulous patients' preferences for treatment using conventional or implant dentures (ID). A consecutive sample of 112 patients was selected in a university facility. All patients responded to a questionnaire concerning preferences about treatment and factors influencing preferences for conventional complete dentures (CD), implant-retained overdentures (IRO) and fixed implant-supported prostheses (FISP). Subsequently, a set of 21 questions was presented, and patients were requested to rate the importance of various potential reasons influencing their choice of treatment. Preference for CD was more prevalent for maxilla (52·7%) and mandible (41·1%). Fixed implant-supported prostheses and IRO were preferred for the mandible (FISP=37·5%; IRO=21·4%) rather than maxilla (FISP=27·7%; IRO=19·6%). The most preferred treatment option among the subjects when evaluating both arches was the implant-supported fixed or removable prosthesis (FISP/IRO). A preference for combined upper and lower CD was also commonly reported (39·3%). Factor analysis identified six components that accounted for 72·2% of the total variance: (i) psychosocial benefits, (ii) functional performance, (iii) technical and financial concerns, (iv) post-insertion complaints, (v) removability and (vi) longevity. Technical and financial concerns (cost, complexity, surgery risks and duration of treatment) were more relevant for those who preferred ID (P<0·001). With the exception of post-insertion complaints, all mean scores of component factor loadings were positive for ID. Conventional complete dentures are associated with lower expected outcomes by patients, and cost-related issues are the major factors associated with the preferences for implant treatment of edentulous patients.

Implant treatment in an urban general dentistry residency program: a 7-year retrospective study.

Survival rates of multiple implant designs placed in various clinical situations average more than 90%. However, little data have been published on the survival rates of implants placed in dental residency programs. This study reports on the outcome of dental implants placed by first-year general dentistry residents in the University of Florida College of Dentistry-Jacksonville Clinic. The patients for this study received both surgical and restorative implant therapy from 1998 to 2005. A total of 263 patients (147 women, 116 men) were treated with dental implants. On average, a patient was 55.5 years old and received 3 implants. A variety of simple and complex restorative procedures were performed. Advanced general dentistry residents in conjunction with supervisory faculty treated all cases. The cumulative implant survival was 96.6%. Follow-up varied from 6 months to 7 years after placement. Cases included implants not yet loaded as well as implants loaded for 6 years or more. The findings of this study compare favorably with published studies and were unexpected in light of the residents' limited clinical experience.

Low-cost implant overdenture option for patients treated in a predoctoral dental school curriculum.

In an effort to make the implant overdenture more affordable for patients, a pricing package at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry was established. This package includes two implants, two dentures (upper and lower), and two implant abutments, all for $975. It is known as the "2-2-2" implant program. One concern regarding the program was whether patients would complete overdenture treatment or simply receive implants at this relatively low cost and have the implants restored outside the school. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to determine how many patients in 2004 received implants as part of this program and how many of these patients completed overdenture treatment. Other data (age, distance from school, number of teeth at start of treatment, and gender) were collected to identify variables that might be associated with greater likelihood of completing overdenture treatment. In 2004, fifty-one patients received 102 implants as part of this program. Two patients had a failed implant prior to restoration (two of 102 implants), and one patient was referred to graduate prosthodontics for restoration. Of the remaining forty-eight patients, forty-one completed overdenture treatment (85 percent), and seven (15 percent) were lost to follow-up. The mean age of patients receiving this treatment was 60.7 years. The mean distance traveled to the school was 70.7 miles. While no variables showed significant predictive value, point estimates (estimate of the odds ratio) suggest that older patients and patients who travel greater distance to the school were less likely to complete treatment. The low-cost implant overdenture has been an important addition to our curriculum. The majority of patients who receive implants as part of this program complete overdenture treatment.

Dental implant use in New Zealand in 2004.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics of dental implant providers in New Zealand, to evaluate providers' dental implant treatment strategies, and to determine the nature of barriers to implant usage in New Zealand. DESIGN: A postal survey questionnaire was sent to all registered dentists in New Zealand (N=1590). METHOD: Data were analyzed with the SPSS statistical package. RESULTS: Replies were received from 1005 (63.2 percent) of the surveyed dentists. The majority of dentists (76.2 percent) are interested in dental implants and promote them in their practices. Implant dentistry is performed by 49.5 percent of the respondents, with the prosthodontic aspects of implant dentistry are performed by 79.5 percent of these dentists, while the surgical stage is referred to specialists in 89.0 percent of the cases. The greatest barrier to dental implant treatment is cost. Implant dentistry is most often provided when there is financial support from ACC. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of dental implant use in New Zealand is still relatively limited. Dentists understand the benefits of dental implant therapy, but the perceived expense of treatment prevents optimal utilization.

A survey of the use of mandibular implant overdentures in 10 countries.

PURPOSE: This preliminary international survey compared provision of implant-retained overdentures to fixed implant-supported prostheses for edentulous mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires based on a 2001 Swedish study were sent to prosthodontists and specialist clinics in nine additional countries. RESULTS: Response rate varied from 53% to 100% in 10 national surveys and should allow careful comparison of results. The relationship between implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in treatment of edentulous mandibles varied much; in Sweden, the proportion of overdentures was 12%, whereas it was 93% in The Netherlands. In all countries, the most common reason for choice of the overdenture was reduced cost. In all but two countries, the majority of respondents thought that patients with implant overdentures were equally or more satisfied with overdentures as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses. CONCLUSION: There were great differences among the 10 countries in choice of implant treatment of the edentulous mandible. The relative proportion of mandibular overdentures to fixed prostheses was low in Sweden and Greece and varied from one to two thirds in the other countries, except The Netherlands.

Use of mandibular implant overdentures: treatment policy in prosthodontic specialist clinics in Sweden.

The aim was to examine the use of mandibular implant overdentures in Swedish prosthodontic specialist clinics. Questionnaires related to treatment with mandibular implant overdentures during 2001 were sent to the heads of the 30 prosthodontic specialist clinics of the Public Dental Health Service in Sweden. Completed questionnaires were received from 28 (93%). The number of treatments with mandibular implant overdentures varied much among the clinics (0 to 22). Seven clinics had not performed any such treatment, and the median number was 2. The number of fixed implant-supported prostheses was much higher (median value 17, range 4 to 100). The correlation between the number of implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles was weak (r = 0.33; P = 0.10). The most common anchorage system was ball attachments on two unsplinted implants. The most common reason for the choice of the overdenture treatment was the reduced cost, whereas the patient's main wish to improve denture retention came next. The question whether the demand for implant overdentures had increased during the last few years, was answered with "no" by 19, with "yes" by 5 and with "don't know" by 4 clinics. All but one responded that their attitude to implant overdentures had not changed after the introduction of free pricing in Swedish dentistry. It can be concluded that compared to the rapidly increasing international use of mandibular implant overdentures, this treatment of edentulous patients is rare in Sweden, where fixed implant-supported prostheses still are predominant.

Debt and practice profiles of beginning dental practitioners.

Escalating student debt for dental education has led some to speculate that beginning practitioners may undertake procedures that are beyond their competence in an effort to augment practice income. This hypothesis was tested directLy using a data set containing self-reports of practice profiles across a wide range of procedures and debt for education, practice, and personal purposes. Respondents were 113 individuals who had graduated from a private dental school from 1986 to 1997. Conservative dental practice was measured by comparing frequency of commonly and uncommonly performed procedures in the group as a whole against the profile for each respondent. There was no association between educationaL debt and propensity to engage in unconventional procedures. Older dentists and those who felt more competent at the time of graduation were less conservative. Amount of practice debt was a better predictor of unconventional practice than was educational debt.

An assessment of sensitivity to change of the Oral Health Impact Profile in a clinical trial.

UNLABELLED: Patient-based assessment of oral health outcomes is of growing interest. Measurement of change following clinical intervention is a key property of a health status measure. To date, most of the research on oral health status measurement has focused on construct and discriminant validity of health status measures. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess sensitivity to change of an oral-specific health status measure, the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). METHODS: Study subjects were in three groups, namely, edentulous/edentate subjects who requested and received complete implant stabilised oral prostheses (IG, n=26), edentulous/edentate subjects who requested implants but received conventional dentures (CDG1, n=22), and edentulous subjects who had new conventional complete dentures (CDG2, n=35). Data were collected pre- and post-operatively using the OHIP and a validated denture satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: All subjects reported similar low levels of denture satisfaction pre-operatively. Denture problems had a more significant impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQL) for implant seekers (IG and CDG1 subjects) than subjects seeking conventional dentures (CDG2). Following treatment, significant improvement in satisfaction with oral prostheses and OHRQL was reported by IG and CDG2 subjects; the level of improvement was more moderate for CDG1 subjects. OHIP change scores were correlated with denture satisfaction change scores. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that sensitivity to change of the OHIP was good. This property was not improved by using statement weights.

The impact of tooth loss in a denture wearing population: an assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of tooth loss in complete denture wearers using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), and to compare the validity of 49 and 14 item versions of OHIP in a denture wearing population. DESIGN: In this cross sectional study, data were collected at Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK. Two groups were involved: (1) subjects edentulous in one or both jaws seeking dental implants to retain their intra-oral prostheses (n = 48); (2) an edentulous control group of the same age and gender distribution requesting conventional, complete dentures (n = 35). All participants in the study completed a 49 item OHIP (OHIP-49) and a validated denture satisfaction questionnaire prior to active treatment. OHIP data were computed using the weighted standardised and simple count methods. Non-parametric statistical tests were used to compare the responses of implant and control subjects. RESULTS: Both groups were dissatisfied with their conventional dentures and had relatively similar levels of dissatisfaction. There were statistically significant differences between the groups for all seven OHIP-49 sub-scale scores. Differences between OHIP-14 sub-scale scores were also significant, with presence of teeth influencing the impact on psychological discomfort. CONCLUSION: Subjects in the implant group were significantly more impaired, disabled and handicapped by tooth loss than subjects seeking conventional dentures. The results suggested that OHIP-49 and OHIP-14 had a similar ability to discriminate between the groups. This indicates that OHIP-14 may be a useful aid in a clinical setting.

Complications and maintenance requirements of implant-supported prostheses provided in a UK dental hospital.

AIM: To assess the nature, timing and frequency of complications associated with implant therapy and to assess maintenance requirements of implant-supported prostheses. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: The Dental Hospital in Newcastle upon Tyne. METHOD: Dental records of 60 patients provided with implant-supported prostheses were examined. Data were compiled on the number of fixtures placed per patient, the type of prosthesis provided, complications during the surgical and prosthodontic phases, and peri-implant soft tissue complications. RESULTS: 66 prostheses were placed on 236 fixtures over a 6-year period. Surgical complications included fixture loss (n = 6), dysaesthesia (n = 12), and the need for a guided tissue regeneration procedure (n = 10). Common maintenance requirements were tightening of components (n = 11), clip replacement (n = 7) and repair of conventional prostheses opposing implant supported prostheses (n = 7). Plaque control was unsatisfactory with almost half of the subjects requiring intensive oral hygiene instruction and scaling at the first post placement review. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthodontic maintenance requirements were high, particularly during the first year. Surgical complications were relatively infrequent. A case was made for a rigorous oral hygiene programme to reduce the potential for fixture loss through neglect. The financial cost associated with the maintenance of implant-supported prostheses should be incorporated in their overall funding.

A nationwide evaluative study on implant-retained overdentures.

OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, dental implants have been included in the National Dental Insurance Scheme (NDIS) since 1989. Nowadays, out-of-pocket expenditure is low, making implant treatment financially feasible for a large group of edentulous, potential implant candidates. Treatment can be performed by both oral surgeons and general dentists. Results of implant treatment in the literature are usually obtained in academic and specialized centers. In contrast to this, the present study evaluates the quantitative and qualitative aspects of rehabilitation with oral implants in combination with an overdenture when applied on a nationwide scale. METHODS: For this purpose all patients (n = 5410) treated between January 1989 and July 1992 were extensively documented pre-operatively, implant patients (n = 429) were clinically investigated by two independent observers and the effect of treatment on denture complaints was assessed by means of a questionnaire (n = 460). RESULTS: Only a small proportion of the potential pool of implant candidates is actually being treated, to a constant number of approximately 2000 patients a year. The selected patients have major denture problems and have received relatively high levels of prosthetic care during the last decade. Clinical results are comparable to those reported in the literature, implant survival after 3 years for the lower jaw being 96.3% and for the upper jaw 70.4%. Oral hygiene was frequently considered suboptimal and seen in conjunction with marginal inflammation of the peri-implant mucosa. Subjective results were excellent, patients were quite satisfied with the improvements in the comfort and esthetics of their lower denture. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-overdenture treatment, within the guidelines and regulations set by the Dutch NDIS, is a safe and effective treatment alternative, in particular for the rehabilitation of the lower jaw.

A review of educational developments with Brånemark osseointegrated oral implants in Australia and New Zealand 1992-1994. Part I: Treatment data for Australia and New Zealand.

This review should be read in conjunction with the Teams Day Conference review of 1992. This data further emphasises the trend in implant restoration that was becoming apparent at that time. However, the degree to which single tooth implant restorations now dominate clinical implant treatment is unprecedented. There is clear evidence of a progressive increase also in segmental and full arch bridgework, but minimal increase in overdenture restorations. The data also indicates that for the first time the number of males treated was greatest and that the maxilla was more frequently restored. This latter feature is no doubt closely linked with the emphasis given to single tooth restorations. This data, fully supports the inclusion of implant restoration into general and specialist dental practice.