SURVIVAL RATE OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED, SINGLE-TOOTH RESTORATIONS BASED ON ZIRCONIA OR METAL ABUTMENT IN PATIENTS WITH TOOTH AGENESIS: A 5-YEARS PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to investigate survival rate of zirconia versus metal abutments, and the secondary aim was clinical outcomes of all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic crowns on single-tooth implants. METHODS: Patients with tooth-agenesis participated to previously published prospective clinical study with 3-year follow-up were recalled after 5 years. Biological variables included survival and success rate of implants, marginal bone level, modified Plaque and Sulcus Bleeding Index and biological complications. Technical variables included restoration survival rate, marginal adaptation and technical complications. The aesthetic outcome of crowns and peri-implant mucosa in addition to patient-reported outcome were recorded. Descriptive analysis, linear mixed model for quantitative data, or generalized linear mixed model for ordinal categorical data were applied; significance was set to 0.05. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (mean age: 32.4 years), with 89 implants participated to the 5-years examination. The implants supported 50 zirconia abutments with 50 all-ceramic (AC) crown and 39 metal abutments with 29 metal-ceramic (MC) and 10 AC crowns. The Implant and restoration survival rate was 100% and 96%, respectively. No clinically relevant biological difference between implants supporting metal or zirconia abutments was registered. The technical complications were veneering fracture of AC-crowns (n = 3), crown loosening of MC-crowns (n = 4) and one abutment screw loosening (MC-crown on metal abutment). MC-crowns had significantly better marginal adaptation than AC-crowns (p = .01). AC-crowns had significantly better color and morphology than MC-crowns (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia-based single-tooth restorations are reliable alternative materials to metal-based restorations with favorable biological and aesthetic outcome, and few technical complications.

Survival and Success of Dental Implants in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: a Systematic Review.

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review is to disclose the impact of autoimmune diseases and their medical treatment on dental implant survival and success. Material and Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Library and Embase up to December 6th, 2021. Any clinical study on patients with an autoimmune disease in whom implant therapy was performed was eligible. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For each autoimmune disease group, data synthesis was divided into three groups: 1) overall results of the autoimmune disease, 2) overall results of corresponding control groups and 3) overall results of the autoimmune disease with a concomitant autoimmune disease (a subgroup of group 1). Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Of 4,865 identified articles, 67 could be included and mainly comprising case reports and retrospective studies with an overall low quality. Implant survival rate was 50 to 100% on patient and implant level after a weighted mean follow-up of 17.7 to 68.1 months. Implant success was sporadically reported. Data on immunosuppressive medication were too heterogeneously reported to allow detailed analysis. Conclusions: Overall, a high implant survival rate was reported in patients with autoimmune diseases. However, the identified studies were characterized by a low quality. No conclusions could be made regarding implant success and the effect of immunosuppressants due to heterogeneous reporting.

Digital versus conventional prosthetic workflow for dental students providing implant-supported single crowns: A randomized crossover study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital scanning has become popular and has been reported to be more comfortable for patients and equally or more accurate than conventional impression techniques. However, clinical evidence to support the advantages of digital scanning is sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized crossover study was to examine and compare the patient and provider perceptions of digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) provided by dental students under supervision. Furthermore, the quality and patient-reported outcome of the definitive restorations were compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty participants in need of a single tooth replacement were enrolled. Three months after initial implant placement, recordings were made for implant-supported crowns. The participants were randomized into a conventional or a digital group but underwent both procedures. Only the designated impression or scan was sent to the dental laboratory technician to be processed. All participants and students were asked questions concerning which technique they preferred. Furthermore, the participants filled out an oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire before and after treatment. The restorations' esthetic and technical quality was evaluated using the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS). RESULTS: The participants preferred the digital technique (80%) over the conventional technique (2%), while 18% of the participants had no preference. The participants were bothered significantly more (P<.001), experienced significantly more shortness of breath (P<.001), and were significantly more anxious during the conventional impression than during the digital scan (P<.001). Most students also preferred the digital technique (65%) over the conventional technique (22%), and 13% had no preference. The students found that the conventional impression procedure was less time-consuming but more uncertain in comparison with the digital technique. The digital technique was perceived as significantly more impractical than the conventional technique (P<.05). The results from CIS showed no significant difference in the quality of the restorations. Following treatment, the OHIP-14 scores showed a significant drop, suggesting an increase in oral health-related quality of life (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The perceptions of the participants and students of the digital intraoral scanning were significantly better than those of the conventional technique. No significant differences in the quality of the restorations or OHIP scores were observed using the two recording techniques.

Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region.

BACKGROUND: Different treatment options exist for replacement of an anterior tooth, and as implant-supported single crowns (ISSC) and resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDPs) both are widespread treatment options, it is of clinical relevance to know which treatment modality can be considered superior. PURPOSE: The purpose of this comparative study was to evaluate the 3- and 5-year survival and failure rate of tooth-supported resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis compared to implant-supported single crowns. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in survival rate, occurrence of complications or patient-reported outcome between RBFDPs and ISSCs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 45 resin-bonded FDPs were inserted in 27 young patients (test group) with tooth agenesis in the anterior part of the maxilla or mandible and a control group of 28 patients also with tooth agenesis in the anterior region but treated with 40 implant-supported single crowns were included in this study. All patients and treatments were followed with a baseline and a 3- or 5-year examination. All patients had to fill out an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire at baseline and at the 3- or 5-year examination. The restorations were evaluated according to the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS). RESULTS: For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate, that is, four RBFDPs were not in situ after 3 years and four RBFDPs were not in situ after 5 years. Correspondingly, the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%, that is, only one failure (ceramic fracture) after 3 and none after 5 years. Of the 82% RBFDPs in situ, there were no complications in 78% of the cases, whereas 22% had complications after 3 (4 complications) and 5 years (4 complications). There were 92% of the ISSCs without any complications and 8% (ie, 3 ISSCs) with complications after 3 or 5 years. In general, there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores, for example, an improved oral health quality of life for both treatment options. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs. In general, the OHIP-scores were significantly reduced regardless of whether RBFDPs or ISSC were used.

Patient-reported outcomes for bone regenerative procedures.

Evidence-based dentistry used for decision-making and assessment of treatment includes three components: evidence from the literature, clinical expertise, and patient expectations. Patient satisfaction embraces affability, availability, and ability and can be examined using questionnaires or structured questions to the patient to evaluate patient perception of the treatment. The questions can be quantified using dichotomous, point, or visual analog scales. This would be a straightforward patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Validated and specific oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) questionnaires such as the oral health impact profile (OHIP), oral impact on daily performance (OIDP), or the dental impact on daily living (DIDL) can be used as PROMs, and these measures are appropriate for population studies, where you can measure changes over time and differences between treatment groups. PROMs have shown to enhance patient engagement when integrated into clinical care. PROMs for bone regenerative procedures are mainly used as secondary outcome and are concentrating on the prosthetic outcome more than the pain, discomfort, anxiety, and cost of the surgical procedures. Surprisingly, most patients are satisfied and willing to have the procedures performed again. Whether this is recall bias or not and how the information's from the dentist and the team influence the patients answers to PROMs questionnaires are discussed. The importance of patient perspectives in bone regeneration procedures is obvious and combined with clinical outcome measures, it increases our ability to provide better care. Studies using PROMs as a primary outcome variable are required.

Outcome of healing after dental implant placement in patients with cancer on high-dose antiresorptive medications: a prospective feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Implant placement in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive medication (HDAR) is considered contraindicated. This prospective, feasibility study tested the hypothesis that dental implants can be placed in such patients by applying a staged implant placement protocol with submerged healing. METHODS: Three groups of patients on HDAR were included as follows: group 1: patients who underwent tooth extraction, without the development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ); group 2: patients with surgically treated MRONJ who had demonstrated clinical healing for at least 3 months; group 3: patients with established MRONJ who was planned for surgical resection and simultaneous implant placement. RESULTS: A total of 49 implants were placed in 27 patients (group 1: 12, group 2: 7 and group 3: 8). HDAR included bisphosphonates and denosumab. The mean HDAR time was 25 months (SD: ± 18.4, range 3-68 months). An abutment operation was performed 4 months following the implant placement (SD: ± 1.9, range 3-14 months). All patients healed uneventfully. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that it is feasible to insert dental implants and perform an abutment surgery in patients with cancer on HDAR, without the development of MRONJ. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04741906.

Optical coherence tomography systems for evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic reconstructions.

Purpose: To evaluate the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns using two optical coherence tomography (OCT) systems in order to estimate inter-system variations. Materials and methods: Ten lithium disilicate and 10 cubic stabilized zirconia crowns were placed on prepared artificial teeth without cement. Marginal discrepancy and internal cement gap of the crowns were assessed on images obtained using a swept source OCT (SS-OCT) and a spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT). Medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for both materials and OCT systems. Thereafter, Wilcoxon signed rank test was carried out. Results: No significant difference was found between the two OCT systems for absolute marginal discrepancy of either lithium disilicate (SS-OCT: 182 µm, SD-OCT: 214 µm; p = .922) or zirconia crowns (SS-OCT: 116 µm, SD-OCT: 121 µm; p = .232). Regarding internal cement gap, no significant difference was found between the two OCT systems for lithium disilicate crowns (SS-OCT: 128 µm, SD-OCT: 128 µm; p = .064). However, for zirconia crowns the SD-OCT showed significantly higher (p = .027) internal cement gap (92 µm) than the SS-OCT (68 µm). Moreover, it was not possible to assess the internal fit of zirconia crowns in 47% and 34% of the sites using SD-OCT and SS-OCT, respectively. Conclusions: No significant difference was noted in the ability of SS-OCT and SD-OCT to assess the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns, nor the marginal fit of zirconia crowns. On the contrary, drawbacks regarding the assessment of internal fit of zirconia crowns using both OCT systems were observed.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw and successful implant treatment in a patient on high-dose antiresorptive medication: A case report.

OBJECTIVES: Oral rehabilitation can be a challenge in patients on high-dose antiresorptive medication (HDAR), especially if the alveolar anatomy has changed due to previous medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) resection. In healthy patients, dental implant treatment has found wide acceptance in prosthetic rehabilitation as it increases the patient's oral health-related quality of life. However, it is considered contraindicated in patients on HDAR due to the risk of MRONJ, although a recent feasibility study indicates that implant treatment may indeed be an option in these patients. The aim of the present case report is to illustrate the risk of MRONJ in a patient with cancer on HDAR and to discuss the reasons behind the outcomes of the implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient with prostate cancer with bone metastases on high-dose denosumab therapy with previous MRONJ had four implants inserted bilaterally in the maxilla (14, 13, 23, 24). Two identical implant-supported screw-retained cantilever bridges were fabricated. The patient was followed for more than 1 year. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Peri-implantitis, and/or MRONJ, was diagnosed around two of the implants (23, 24), probably induced by crestal bone trauma from a healing abutment and/or a misfitting prosthetic reconstruction. A peri-implantitis operation was performed, but without the desired response, and the two implants (23, 24) were later removed in an MRONJ resection. The implants on the other side of the maxilla (14, 13) remained without complications. Dental implant treatment is feasible in patients on HDAR, but comorbidities (e.g., diabetes mellitus) and polypharmacy (e.g., chemotherapy and steroids) may add to the risk of implant failure. Minimal trauma surgery and prosthodontics are crucial to increase the chance of successful healing in an HDAR patient.

A 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia-based versus metal-based implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the premolar region.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 5-year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5-year follow-up. The prosthetic treatment on single-tooth implants was randomly assigned to all-ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal-ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient-reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP-49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow-up examination. RESULTS: At the 5-year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: -0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC- and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The biological, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes for implant-supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5-years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments.

Are colored periodontal probes reliable to classify the gingival phenotype in terms of gingival thickness?

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study assessed the potential of colored periodontal probes (CPP) to classify gingival phenotype in terms of gingival thickness (GT). METHODS: Buccal GT in three anterior teeth in each of 50 patients was measured by transgingival sounding and classified by three different methods by eight examiners. Specifically, the diagnostic potential of visual judgment and transparency of a standard periodontal probe (SPP) to discriminate thin and thick gingiva, and of CPP to discriminate thin, medium, thick, or very thick gingiva was assessed. RESULTS: GT ranged from 0.57 to 2.37 mm. Using CPP resulted in a medium judgment in 87% of the cases, on average, and only between 1-10 cases/examiner were judged as thick or very thick. Considering 1 mm GT as relevant cut-off value, all methods showed a high positive predictive value (≥ 0.82) to identify thick cases, but also a high false omission rate (≥ 0.73) indicating that many cases classified as thin were actually thick. Further, 88% of the cases being ≤ 1 mm, were not classified as thin with CPP; this was inferior to SPP, for which, however, still 64% of the cases being ≤ 1 mm thick were wrongly classified. The highest, yet moderate agreement among examiners was achieved by SPP (κ = 0.427), whereas visual judgment and CPP showed only fair (κ = 0.211) and slight agreement (κ = 0.112), respectively. CONCLUSION: Using CPP resulted in most of the cases in a medium judgment. It seems that CPP cannot distinctly discriminate between "thick" and "very thick" cases and fails to capture the thin high-risk cases.

Efficacy and risks of removable partial prosthesis in periodontitis patients: A systematic review.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses (RDPs) more efficacious than no prosthetic treatment, treatment to a shortened dental arch (SDA), or tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed electronically for the period 1966-2020. Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis. Prospective studies found that RDPs could be maintained without any significant periodontal destruction on a long-term basis. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis could be performed. Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation. RDPs had only a limited effect on masticatory efficiency and nutritional status. RDPs may improve oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), but to a lesser extent compared with that of patients treated to an SDA. CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss. RDPs do not inevitably improve masticatory efficiency but improve OHRQoL, although less than for patients treated with FDPs including resin-bonded FDPs.

Tooth extractions in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive medication: a randomized clinical feasibility trial of drug holiday versus drug continuation.

OBJECTIVE: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a serious adverse reaction to high-dose antiresorptive medication (AR) in patients with cancer. A temporary discontinuation of AR (drug holiday) has been suggested to potentially reduce the risk of MRONJ after oral surgery. However, no consensus exists. The aim of the present feasibility trial was to evaluate the impact of a high-dose AR drug holiday in connection with surgical tooth extraction on the development of MRONJ and patient-reported health state. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with cancer receiving high-dose AR were randomized to a drug holiday from 1 month before to 3 months after surgical tooth extraction or drug continuation. Follow-up was scheduled at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Patient health state was evaluated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. RESULTS: The study included 23 patients (11 men, 12 women). AR included denosumab (n = 13) and bisphosphonate (n = 10) with median AR durations of 9 and 17.5 months, respectively. Four denosumab patients from the drug holiday group developed MRONJ. Differences in EQ-5D-5L between the treatment groups were found in favor of drug continuation. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that a high-dose AR drug holiday does not prevent development of MRONJ after surgical tooth extraction and that patient-reported health state declines during a drug holiday compared with drug continuation.

Impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading: Summary and consensus statements of group 1-The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

OBJECTIVES: This publication reports on the EAO workshop group 1 summaries, discussions and consensus statements based on four systematic reviews evaluating the impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first of the systematic reviews was on the influence of the timing of implant placement and loading in the biological outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. The second systematic review evaluated the influence of the timing of implant placement and loading on the aesthetic outcomes in single-tooth implants. The third systematic review was on the long-term outcomes of maxillary single-tooth implants in relation to timing protocols of implant placement and loading and the fourth on patient's perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry. The group evaluated these systematic reviews, provided comments and additions as required and agreed on the relevant consensus statements as well as on clinical and research recommendations. RESULTS: Different timings of implant placement/loading presented with high implant survival rates. The systematic reviews evaluated from this working group provided a number of conclusions based on the available/current literature. However, the specific topic of timing is an area that further research is required in order to provide detailed guidelines for the different protocols to be employed.

Patient's perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review.

Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced. AIM: What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient-reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies? MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies. RESULTS: Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full-text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies. CONCLUSION: a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant-supported single or short-span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full-arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.

Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant-supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n = 14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n = 12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio-lingual (coronal) and mesio-distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio-lingual crestal deviation, facio-lingual apical deviation, facio-lingual angular deviation, mesio-distal crestal deviation, mesio-distal apical deviation, mesio-distal angular deviation, and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG and CG groups were compared statistically (p < .05). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p = .047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p = .019), where the CG group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences, and none of the implants in the FG group and CG group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio-lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.

A 5-year, randomized clinical trial on 3-unit fiber-reinforced versus 3- or 2-unit, metal-ceramic, resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses.

PURPOSE: To compare in a randomized controlled trial the 5-year clinical outcomes of (1) 3-unit fiber-reinforced resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) to 3-unit metal-ceramic RBFDPs; and (2) 3-unit fiber-reinforced RBFDPs to 2-unit cantilevered metal-ceramic RBFDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive sample of 50 young adult patients with tooth agenesis or trauma in the anterior region was included. The recruitment period was from 2005 to 2009, during which a total of 62 RBFDPs were inserted. In group A, 27 participants were randomly treated with 18 metal-ceramic 3-unit RBFDPs and 15 3-unit fiber-reinforced RBFDPs. In group B, 23 participants were randomly treated with 16 metal-ceramic 2-unit RBFDPs and 13 3-unit fiber-reinforced RBFDPs. All patients were followed up at baseline registration and at 1, 3, and 5 years. The primary outcome parameter was survival rate of the RBFDPs, and the secondary outcome parameters were periodontal and technical/esthetic outcomes and patient-reported evaluation of the RBFDPs. RESULTS: Seven patients dropped out of the study during the 5-year observation period. In group A, the fiber-reinforced RBFDPs had a cumulative survival rate of 23% after 5 years, which was significantly less than for the 3-unit metal-ceramic RBFDPs. In group B, the cumulative 5-year survival rate was 36% for the fiber-reinforced RBFDPs and 91% for the 2-unit cantilevered metal-ceramic RBFDPs. CONCLUSION: The 3- and 2-unit metal-ceramic RBFDPs had a significantly higher 5-year survival rate than the 3-unit fiber-reinforced RBFDPs. The accessibility for oral hygiene practice was better with 2-unit compared to 3-unit RBFDPs, and the degree of gingivitis was lower. The esthetic outcome was better for the RBFDPs with ceramic pontics than the composite ones.

Efficacy of a high-dose antiresorptive drug holiday to reduce the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ): A systematic review.

A temporary discontinuation (drug holiday) of high-dose antiresorptive (AR) agents has been proposed to reduce the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). The aim of this systematic review was to answer the question: Is high-dose AR drug holiday, at the time of tooth extraction or dentoalveolar surgery, necessary to prevent the development of MRONJ in patients with cancer? This protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant studies up to and including April 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and cross-sectional studies, surveys, and case reports with more than five patients were included. Records were imported into www.covidence.org. Electronic searches were supplemented by manual searches and reference linkage. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) were followed. Although only one study fitted the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework, valuable information on AR drug holiday could be extracted from 14 of 371 reviewed articles. Among these, 3 were prospective and 11 were retrospective studies. These studies described or evaluated high-dose AR drug holidays. In 2 studies, patients were being treated with denosumab, but neither showed that a drug holiday was effective. The remaining 12 studies evaluated bisphosphonate treatment and 2 of these studies found no reason to use AR drug holiday before surgery. Three studies recommended drug holidays, whereas most of the studies recommended assessing each patient separately. The only paper that fitted the PICO approach was a non-randomized, prospective study with a control group. This study concluded that drug holiday was not necessary. Thus, there are no evidence for using drug holiday, but it is also clear that caused by a limited numbers of eligible patients, and a great variation in between these patient, high-level evidence for using AR drug holiday is almost impossible to obtain.

Patients' and health professionals' experience of the Danish fast track treatment pathway for head and neck cancer patients receiving oral rehabilitation.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the responsiveness of the Danish treatment pathway for head-and-neck-cancer (HNC) patients receiving oral rehabilitation.Material and Methods: Eighteen HNC-patients who had received oral rehabilitation as well as five medical and four oral health care professionals involved in the treatment of HNC-patients filled in a questionnaire on responsiveness. The responsiveness was further described in individual interviews in the HNC-patients and focus group interviews in the health care professionals. All interviews were semi-structured and analysed using the grounded theory.Results: Patients and health care professionals overall reported good responsiveness of the pathway. Prompt attention was in both groups considered the most important aspect, although the patients found it difficult to cope mentally with the fast-track and the health care professionals reported insufficiencies giving prompt attention. The patients in general described a good relationship with their health care professionals, but along with the health care professionals also reported some problems regarding communication. Further, the health care professionals reported a gap between medical treatment and oral rehabilitation.Conclusions: The Danish treatment pathway for HNC-patients was, in general, evaluated positively. Communication and relationship between patient and health care professional can affect the responsiveness of the pathway.

Patient-reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth-supported fixed prosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the patient-reported effect of treatment with implant-supported fixed prosthesis (ISFP) and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) in patients with a small number of tooth losses to replace. METHODS: From a population of 155 patients receiving either ISFP or FDP, 68 patients were matched in pairs based on gender, number of teeth replaced, zone of replacement, age and number of remaining teeth. The patient-reported effect was prospectively obtained by measuring change in the short-form oral health impact (OHIP-14) from before to one month after treatment. Effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM) and a minimal important difference of two units were applied to estimate the magnitude of the change. RESULTS: Both the ISFP and FDP groups decreased significantly in OHIP-14 after treatment (P < .01). The change was not significantly different between the ISFP and FDP groups. The magnitude of the change was for both treatments moderate and slightly higher in the ISFP group (ES = 0.52 and SRM = 0.58) than in the FDP group (ES = 0.48 and SRM = 0.47). Applying the minimal important difference showed that 23 participants in the ISFP group and 21 in the FDP group had good effect. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-reported effect of treatment with ISFP or FDP was similar, clinically meaningful and of moderate magnitude in patients with a small number tooth losses to replace.

Implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers compared with single crowns on adjacent implants: A comparative retrospective case series.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The replacement of 2 adjacent missing teeth remains a clinical challenge. Among the different treatment options, the use of a single implant to support a 2-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) has been proposed in situations of limited mesiodistal space, even though the evidence for its use is low. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative case series was to evaluate hard and soft peri-implant tissues in patients with 2 adjacent missing teeth in the anterior area (incisors or canines) rehabilitated with implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers or single crowns on adjacent implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three from a cohort of 34 patients rehabilitated with 2-implant systems between September 2006 and November 2015 with 2-unit cantilever FDPs (test group) (n=16) or 2 adjacent dental implants supporting single crowns (control group) (n=7) were available for follow-up. At the baseline and follow-up examinations, the implant survival rate, peri-implant probing pocket depth, marginal bone level (MBL), as well as papilla scores and prosthetic outcomes from the Copenhagen Index Score were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: One implant in the control group was lost during the observation period, leading to an overall implant survival rate of 97%. Mean peri-implant probing depths were low (≤5 mm) in both the groups. Stable marginal bone levels were detected around adjacent implants and around implants supporting cantilevers. Medium to high esthetic scores were obtained in most patients. Papilla index scores were high (score 1 and 2) in both the groups. Finally, no technical complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a single-implant-supported 2-unit cantilever FDP in anterior sites is a valid treatment option compared with 2 adjacent implants, especially when the available mesiodistal space is limited.