Partial Rehabilitation with Distally Tilted and Straight Implants in the Posterior Maxilla with Immediate Loading Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 5-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of fixed partial prostheses in the posterior maxilla with two axially placed implants or one implant placed distally tilted and one axially placed implant following an immediate loading protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 60 patients was divided into two groups-group 1: 30 patients rehabilitated with one axially placed implant and one implant placed distally tilted in the posterior maxilla; group 2: 30 patients rehabilitated with two axially placed implants in the posterior maxilla. Outcome measures were implant survival based on function, marginal bone resorption, and the incidence of mechanical and biologic complications at 5 years; inferential statistics were used to analyze the intergroup and intragroup differences. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between both groups in survival, complications, or marginal bone resorption. One axially placed implant was lost at 58 months in group 1, rendering a cumulative survival estimate at 5 years of 96.7% and 98.3% in group 1 and the total sample, respectively (P = .317). Mechanical complications occurred in 16 patients (26.7%; n = 8 patients in each group; [P > .999]), consisting of fractures in the provisional prosthesis (n = 8 patients), chipped ceramics of the definitive prosthesis (n = 2 patients), loosening of prosthetic components (n = 5 patients), and fracture of an attachment screw (n = 1 patient). Biologic complications occurred in 5 patients (8.3%; group 1 = 4 patients; group 2 = 1 patient; [P = .161]), consisting of peri-implant pathology. The mean ± SD marginal bone loss was 2.02 ± 0.36 mm and 1.90 ± 0.69 mm for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .235). In group 1, the mean ± SD marginal bone loss was 1.92 ± 0.48 mm and 2.11 ± 0.44 mm for the implant placed distally tilted and axially placed implant, respectively; the difference was significant (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the use of implants placed distally tilted together with axially placed implants or two axially placed implants in the fixed partial rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla are viable treatment alternatives.

Gengivite descamativa por corpo estranho - um caso clínico atípico / Desquamative gingivitis by foreign-body - an atypical clinical case

A gengivite descamativa caracteriza-se por eritema doloroso, perda da camada superficial de queratina, com ou sem ulceração, na gengiva aderida. Não cede às medidas profiláticas convencionais. Paciente do sexo feminino, 55 anos, caucasiana, compareceu na FMDUP, com “dor e ardência nas gengivas”. Após diagnóstico clínico de gengivite descamativa iniciámos tratamento convencional. Foi realizada biópsia incisional para despiste: líquen plano, pênfigo, penfigóide e lúpus eritematoso. O resultado da biópsia revelou lesão liquenóide com infiltrado linfoplasmocitário e presença de corpo estranho. A histologia, e o facto de a doente não apresentar melhoras com a aplicação de corticóide tópico, à excepção da zona biopsada, favoreceu a hipótese de gengivite descamativa por corpo estranho. Paciente foi aconselhada a fazer controlos trimestrais. Pacientes com estas manifestações deverão proceder a um bom controlo de placa bacteriana e descartar outras fontes de inflamação. A remissão da doença, só se consegue totalmente com a eliminação cirúrgica da gengiva afectada.

Desquamative gingivitis is a descriptive term that refers to an erythematous appearance of the gingiva, characterized by loss of keratin, with or without ulceration, and painprophylactic measures won´t restrain symptoms. 55 year-old woman, caucasian, came to FMDUP with pain and burn on the gingiva. Clinical diagnosis of desquamative gingivitis was followed by convencional treatment. Incisional biopsy was performed after verifying the insuccess of convencional measures: lichen planus, pemphigus, pemphigoid, lupus erythematosus were considered. The biopsy unfolded a lichenoid lesion with lymphocytic infiltrate and presence of foreign body. This diagnosis in association with the lack of improvement after topic application of corticosterois, favored the hypothesis of desquamative gingivitis associated with foreign body. The patient was advised to attend to quarterly appointments. Patients with these clinical manifestations, must have a perfect plaque control, allowing to discard other sources of inflammation. Cure is only complete with surgical removal of the affected gingiva.

Axial Implants in Immediate Function for Partial Rehabilitation in the Maxilla and Mandible: A Retrospective Clinical Study Evaluating the Long-Term Outcome (Up to 10 Years).

BACKGROUND: There is a need of long-term studies evaluating the outcome of fixed partial rehabilitations (FPR) supported by implants in an immediate function protocol. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the long-term outcome of FPR supported by implants placed in immediate function. METHODS: One hundred ninety-nine patients were consecutively included, between 1998 and 2010, with 481 implants supporting 213 FPR (maxilla: 87 and mandible: 126). Primary outcome measures were implant and FPR survival rates; secondary outcome measures were marginal bone levels at 5 and 10 years and incidence of mechanical and biological complications. RESULTS: The cumulative implant survival rate was 98.5% and 99.0% after 5 years and 92.7% and 96.7% after 10 years, using the patient and implant as unit of analysis, respectively. No prostheses were lost. Average (SD) marginal bone levels were 1.79 (0.93) and 1.89 mm (0.81 mm) at 5 and 10 years of follow-up. Mechanical complications occurred in 43 patients (21.6%), biological complications occurred in 12 patients (6%), and 16 implants (3.3%) up to the 10 years follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: FPR supported by immediate function implants in both jaws is a viable and safe treatment alternative.