Mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional implant-supported single-tooth restorations: A laboratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional restorations on titanium temporary abutments, with and without thermo-mechanical ageing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants with a conical connection were divided into four groups (n = 24) and restored with temporary shell or laboratory-fabricated central or lateral incisor PMMA restorations that were relined or bonded on titanium temporary abutments. The diameter of the central and lateral incisor groups' implants was regular (ϕ 4.3 mm) or narrow (ϕ 3.5 mm), respectively. Half of each group's specimens were subjected to ageing, simultaneous thermocycling (5-55°C) and chewing simulation (120,000 cycles, 50 N, 1.7 Hz) resulting in eight groups in total (n = 12). The aged specimens were evaluated with optical microscopy, and survival and complication rates were determined according to modified USPHS criteria. The non-aged specimens and those that had survived ageing were loaded until failure, whereupon bending moments were calculated. RESULTS: Survival rates after ageing were 100% for all groups. Apart from wear facets (ϕ 2-3 mm) on the palatal restoration surface, no complications were observed. The mean fracture load and bending moments ranged between 597.6-847.1 N and 433.3-550.6 Ncm, respectively, with no significant differences between the eight groups (p = .25; p = .20). CONCLUSIONS: As patient-specific temporary shell central and lateral incisor provisional implant-supported restorations are mechanically stable enough to withstand clinical bite forces, even after thermo-mechanical ageing, they may serve as an alternative to laboratory-fabricated provisional restorations.

Single crown restorations supported by 6-mm implants in the resorbed posterior mandible: A 10-year prospective case series.

PURPOSE: To assess marginal bone level changes, implant and restoration survival, condition of the peri-implant mucosa, and the patient's satisfaction with the single restoration supported by a 6-mm long implant in the posterior mandible after 10 years in function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one consecutive patients missing premolars or molars in the posterior mandible, with a bone volume consisting of a width of at least 6 mm and an estimated height of 8 mm between the top of the ridge and alveolar nerve, were included. Each patient received one or more 6-mm implants. After 3 months, the implants were restored with custom-made titanium abutments and cemented zirconia-based porcelain crowns. The clinical examination and radiograph data were assessed at restoration placement and after 12, 60, and 120 months. The patients answered a questionnaire to score their satisfaction before treatment and after 12, 60, and 120 months with the restoration in function. RESULTS: A total of 31 implants were placed. Implant survival was 100%. The 10-year mean marginal bone loss was 0.18 mm (SE: 0.08). The plaque, calculus, gingiva, and bleeding indices scores were low as was the mean pocket probing depth. The patients' satisfaction was high. CONCLUSION: The 10-year follow-up data of this limited case series study reveal that 6-mm dental implants inserted in the resorbed posterior mandible provide a solid basis for single tooth restorations.

Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

The Peri-Implant Microbiome-A Possible Factor Determining the Success of Surgical Peri-Implantitis Treatment?

The objective was to assess the effect of peri-implantitis surgery on the peri-implant microbiome with a follow-up of one year. A total of 25 peri-implantitis patients in whom non-surgical treatment has failed to solve peri-implantitis underwent resective surgical treatment. Their peri-implant pockets were sampled prior to surgical treatment (T0) and one year post treatment (T12). The natural dentition was sampled to analyse similarities and differences with the peri-implantitis samples. Treatment success was recorded. The change in microbial relative abundance levels was evaluated. The microbiota was analysed by sequencing the amplified V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA genes. Sequence data were binned to amplicon sequence variants that were assigned to bacterial genera. Group differences were analysed using principal coordinate analysis, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and t-tests. Beta diversity analyses reported a significant separation between peri-implantitis and natural dentition samples on T0 and T12, along with significant separations between successfully and non-successfully treated patients. Eubacterium was significantly lower on T12 compared to T0 for the peri-implantitis samples. Treponema and Eubacterium abundance levels were significantly lower in patients with treatment success on T0 and T12 versus no treatment success. Therefore, lower baseline levels of Treponema and Eubacterium seem to be associated with treatment success of peri-implantitis surgery. This study might aid clinicians in determining which peri-implantitis cases might be suitable for treatment and give a prognosis with regard to treatment success.

Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the 5-year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0 ), and at 1 (T1 ), 12 (T12 ) and 60 (T60 ) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre-operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score-White Aesthetic Score), soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was -0.6 (-1.1 to -0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (-0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This 5-year follow-up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri-implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

Single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants with sinus floor augmentation or by 6-mm long implants: A 10-year randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) surgery or by 6-mm long implants during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were randomly allocated to receive one 11-mm long implant in combination MFSA or to receive one 6-mm long implant without any grafting. Twenty-one implants in 20 patients were placed in the 6-mm group and 20 implants in 18 patients were placed in the 11-mm group. Both groups were followed by clinical and radiographic examinations up to 10 years. Patients' satisfaction was also scored before treatment. RESULTS: Two patients died and eight patients moved during the follow-up. Two patients lost an implant in the 6-mm group and one implant was lost in the 11-mm group (implant survival 89.5% and 90.9%, respectively). From loading to 10 years' follow-up, mean ± SE marginal bone loss in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 0.18 ± 0.10 mm and 0.26 ± 0.12 mm, respectively, without a significant difference between the groups at 10 years (p = .650). In both groups, indices scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva and bleeding were low as well as mean pocket probing depth. Patients' satisfaction at 10 years was high in both groups; mean overall satisfaction in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 9.6 ± 0.6 and 9.2 ± 0.8, respectively (p = .168). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of 6-mm implants or 11-mm implants combined MFSA are equally successful during a 10-year follow-up period when applied for supporting a single restoration.

Preprosthetic Surgery-Narrative Review and Current Debate.

This review describes the role of modern preprosthetic surgery. The atrophic edentulous jaw can cause severe functional impairment for patients, leading to inadequate denture retention, reduced quality of life, and significant health problems. The aim of preprosthetic surgery is to restore function and form due to tooth loss arising from congenital deformity, trauma, or ablative surgery. Alveolar bone loss is due to disuse atrophy following tooth loss. The advent of dental implants and their ability to preserve bone heralded the modern version of preprosthetic surgery. Their ability to mimic natural teeth has overcome the age-old problem of edentulism and consequent jaw atrophy. Controversies with preprosthetic surgery are discussed: soft tissue versus hard tissue augmentation in the aesthetic zone, bone regeneration versus prosthetic tissue replacement in the anterior maxilla, sinus floor augmentation versus short implants in the posterior maxilla-interpositional bone grafting versus onlay grafts for vertical bone augmentation. Best results for rehabilitation are achieved by the team approach of surgeons, maxillofacial prosthodontists/general dentists, and importantly, informing patients about the available preprosthetic surgical options.

Site-specific radiation dosage and implant survival in oral cancer patients: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the radiation dosages (Dmean ) on implant regions to identify the threshold for implant loss in patients with an intraoral malignancy treated with dental implants to support a mandibular denture during ablative surgery before volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected prospectively from 28 patients treated surgically for an intraoral malignancy, followed by postoperative radiotherapy (VMAT) and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 2 implants in the native mandible during ablative surgery. Implant-specific Dmean values were retrieved from the patients' files. Radiographic bone loss was measured 1 year after implant placement and during the last follow-up appointment. Implant survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate logistic regression and Cox-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of increasing implant-specific radiation dosages on implant loss. RESULTS: Five out of 56 placed implants were lost during follow-up (median 36.0 months, IQR 39.0). Radiographically, peri-implant bone loss occurred in implants with a Dmean > 40 Gy. Implant loss occurred only in implants with a Dmean > 50 Gy. CONCLUSION: An implant-specific Dmean higher than 50 Gy is related to more peri-implant bone loss and, eventually, implant loss.

Implant supported overdentures in Sjögren's disease patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively investigate patient-reported outcomes and clinical performance of implant supported overdentures in edentulous Sjögren's disease (SjD) patients compared to subjects without SjD. METHODS: 51 implants were placed in 12 patients with SjD and 50 implants in 12 non-SjD patients to support overdentures. Clinical performance, marginal bone-level changes, patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were assessed at 1 (T1), 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months after placement of the overdenture. Patient satisfaction, ability to chew and OHRQoL were assessed with validated questionnaires. Marginal bone-level changes were measured on standardised dental radiographs. Clinical parameters included implant and overdenture survival, plaque, bleeding and gingival indices, and probing depth. RESULTS: OHRQoL in patients with SjD improved significantly after placement of implant supported overdentures at all measuring moments compared to baseline (p<0.05). Nevertheless, ability to chew tough and hard food was significantly better for non-SjD patients at all timepoints after placement of an implant supported overdenture (p<0.05). Implant survival at T18 was 100% in the patients with SjD and 98% in the non-SS group. Mean marginal bone loss at T18 did not differ between patients with SjD and non-SS patients, 1.12±0.74 mm and 1.43±1.66 mm, respectively (p=0.58). Clinical performance was good with no differences between the groups for all outcome measures (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-supported overdentures have a positive effect on OHRQoL and dental implants can be successfully applied in edentulous patients with SjD with nearly similar outcomes as in non-SjD subjects.

Prefabricated fibula free flaps in reconstruction of maxillofacial defects: Two cases of transplanting a fractured fibula.

BACKGROUND: The two-staged prefabricated vascularized fibula free flap is used in maxillofacial reconstruction. We describe the possible cause and management of two cases of fibula fracture after implant placement. METHODS: The patients were treated with two-stage reconstruction with a prefabricated vascularized fibula free flap. Six dental implants were placed in both fibulas. Fibula fractures occurred during the osseointegration period before the second procedure. The reconstruction was continued as planned. RESULTS: Both fibulas fractured in the distal segment, possibly due to a thinner cortex more distally. Harvesting of a fractured fibula flap is more difficult than normally due to callus formation and fibrosis. Both transplants became fully functional with extended healing and additional surgery. CONCLUSION: The fracture apparently did not compromise the vascularisation of the fibula and proved still sufficient for successful harvest and transfer of the flap. The patient should be made aware that additional corrective surgery may be indicated.

Two adjacent implant-supported restorations in the aesthetic region: A 10-year prospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment outcome of two adjacent implant-supported restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region was assessed regarding peri-implant soft and hard tissues, and satisfaction during a 10-year follow-up period. METHODS: Twenty patients missing two adjacent teeth in the maxillary aesthetic region and treated with two implant-supported restorations were followed prospectively. The patients' clinical and radiographic parameters, as well as their satisfaction, were scored for a 10-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Seventeen patients' data were available for the 10-year follow-up. The survival rate of the implants and restorations was 100%. The 10-year mean peri-implant bone change at the side facing the adjacent tooth was +0.11 ± 0.57 mm and at the side facing the adjacent implant was -0.08 ± 0.50 mm. The peri-implant soft tissues were healthy and the patients' satisfaction was high, but the papilla-index showed compromised inter-implant papillae and low Pink Esthetic Scores. These figures were of the same magnitude at all time points. CONCLUSION: While it is difficult to obtain sufficient inter-implant papillae and satisfactory Pink Esthetic Scores, the initial treatment results remained stable and the patients were satisfied with the final result throughout the 10-year follow-up period.

ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants: indications, evaluation of surgical techniques and long-term treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the ITI Consensus Workshop on zygomatic implants was to provide Consensus Statements and Clinical Recommendations for the use of zygomatic implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one narrative review were written to address focused questions on (1) the indications for the use of zygomatic implants; (2) the survival rates and complications associated with surgery in zygomatic implant placement; (3) long-term survival rates of zygomatic implants and (4) the biomechanical principles involved when zygoma implants are placed under functional loads. Based on the reviews, three working groups then developed Consensus Statements and Clinical Recommendations. These were discussed in a plenary and finalized in Delphi rounds. RESULTS: A total of 21 Consensus Statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 17 Clinical Recommendations based on the Consensus Statements and the combined expertise of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Zygomatic implants are mainly indicated in cases with maxillary bone atrophy or deficiency. Long-term mean zygomatic implant survival was 96.2% [95% CI 93.8; 97.7] over a mean follow-up of 75.4 months (6.3 years) with a follow-up range of 36-141.6 months (3-11.8 years). Immediate loading showed a statistically significant increase in survival over delayed loading. Sinusitis presented with a total prevalence of 14.2% [95% CI 8.8; 22.0] over a mean 65.4 months follow-up, representing the most common complication which may lead to zygomatic implant loss. The international experts suggested clinical recommendations regarding planning, surgery, restoration, outcomes, and the patient's perspective.

Two or four implants for maxillary overdentures in edentulous patients: 1-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Maxillary implant overdenture therapy is a good treatment option for treating patients experiencing problems with their conventional maxillary denture. Retaining the overdenture with four implants and a bar attachment system serves as the current gold standard. However, there is a demand for less costly and less invasive treatment options. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare marginal bone level change (MBLC), implant and overdenture survival, clinical, masticatory, and patient-related outcomes (PROMs) of maxillary implant overdentures with either two or four implants and a bar attachment system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty edentulous participants were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 20), to receive either two or four implants in the maxilla. After healing, all the participants received an implant overdenture retained by a bar attachment system. All the participants were evaluated 1 and 12 months after overdenture placement. The primary outcome was MBLC. Secondary outcomes were implant and overdenture survival, clinical, masticatory, and PROMs. The outcomes were analyzed using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: MBLC was -0.03 mm in the 2-implant group and -0.16 mm in the 4-implant group (p = 0.21). Implant survival was 83.3% in the 2-implant group and 94.4% in the 4-implant group (p = 0.03). The median pocket depth change and clinical outcomes were low, and masticatory performance along with PROMs improved in both groups and did not differ significantly between them. CONCLUSION: Maxillary 4-implant overdentures perform better than maxillary 2-implant overdentures with a bar attachment system in terms of implant and overdenture survival and therefore remains the gold standard. However, both overdentures perform similarly in terms of MBLC, clinical, masticatory, and PROMs.

Dental implant treatment for two adjacent missing teeth in the esthetic region: A systematic review and 10-year results of a prospective comparative pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the systematic review was to compare studies on implant-supported two-unit cantilever crowns with two adjacent implant-supported crowns in the anterior region. The second aim was to assess in a 10-year prospective comparative pilot study, hard and soft peri-implant tissue changes in patients with a missing central and adjacent lateral upper incisor, treated with either an implant-supported two-unit cantilever crown or two single implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (last search March 1, 2023). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of two missing adjacent teeth in the esthetic region and treated with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis, or with two solitary implant-supported crowns. Outcome measures assessed included implant survival (primary), changes in marginal bone and gingiva level, restoration survival, subjective and objective esthetic scores, papilla volume, mid-facial marginal mucosa level, probing depth, bleeding on probing, and biological and technical complications with ≥1-year follow-up. In addition, in a 10-year pilot study, the same outcome measures were assessed of five patients with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever crown and compared with five patients with two adjacent single implant-supported crowns in the esthetic zone. RESULTS: Nine articles with 11 study groups were found eligible for data extraction. Meta-analyses of implant survival rates were 96.9% (mean follow-up 3.4 ± 1.4 years) for the implant-cantilever treatment and 97.6% (mean follow-up 3.0 ± 1.8 years) for the adjacent implants treatment (p = .79). In the 10-year comparative pilot study, no clinically relevant changes in hard and soft peri-implant tissue levels occurred in both groups. Patient satisfaction was also high in both groups. CONCLUSION: Single implant-supported two-unit crowns can be a viable alternative to the placement of two adjacent single implant crowns in the esthetic zone.

Evaluation of surgical techniques in survival rate and complications of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcome [zygomatic implant (ZI) survival] and complications of the original surgical technique (OST) and an Anatomy-Guided approach (AGA) in the placement of ZI in patients with severely atrophic maxillae. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search from January 2000 to August 2022. The inclusion criteria were articles reporting at least five patients with severely atrophic edentulous maxilla undergoing placement OST and/or AGA, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Number of patients, defect characteristics, number of ZI, implant details, surgical technique, survival rate, loading protocol, prosthetic rehabilitation, complications, and follow-up period were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprised 2194 ZI in 918 patients with 41 failures. The ZI survival rate was 90.3-100% in OST and 90.4-100% in AGA. Probability of complications with ZI with OST was as follows: sinusitis, 9.53%; soft tissue infection, 7.50%; paresthesia, 10.78%; oroantral fistulas, 4.58%; and direct surgical complication, 6.91%. With AGA, the presenting complications were as follows: sinusitis, 4.39%; soft tissue infection, 4.35%; paresthesia, 0.55%; oroantral fistulas, 1.71%; and direct surgical complication, 1.60%. The prevalence of immediate loading protocol was 22.3% in OST and 89.6% in the AGA. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, statistical comparison was only possible after the descriptive analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current systematic review, placing ZI in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae rehabilitation with the OST and AGA is associated with a high implant survival rate and surgical complications within a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Complications, including sinusitis and soft tissue infection around the implant, are the most common. The utilization of immediate loading protocol is more observed in AGA than in OST.

Maxillary implant overdentures retained with bars or solitary attachments: A 5-year randomised controlled trial.

Purpose To compare the 5-year follow-up outcomes of maxillary overdentures retained by bars or solitary attachments.Methods Fifty consecutively selected fully edentulous patients experiencing problems with their conventional denture received four implants and were randomly allocated to receive a maxillary overdenture with either bar- or solitary attachment retention. Marginal bone level change (primary outcome), implant- and overdenture survival rate, clinical- and patient related outcome measures were recorded at baseline, and after 1 and 5 years. Biological and technical complications were recorded throughout the entire follow-up period.Results After 5 years, the mean marginal bone level change was higher in the solitary attachment group (-1.41±1.38mm, P=0.024) than in the bar group (-0.99±0.96mm). Also, fewer implants survived in the solitary attachment group (89.5%, P=0.027) than in the bar group (96.3%). The overdenture survival rate was 95.0% and 91.3% in the bar and solitary attachment group, respectively. Although the clinical and patient related outcomes were favourable and did not differ significantly between the groups, the peri-implantitis incidence was 25.8% in the solitary attachment group and 5.1% in the bar group. Any technical complications were minor.Conclusions In maxillary 4-implant overdenture therapy, the marginal bone level, implant survival rate and the number of complications are better with bar attachments than with solitary attachments. Both groups' clinical and patient related outcome measure scores were equal throughout the entire follow-up period.

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10-year randomized controlled trial results.

AIM: To evaluate bar-supported maxillary implant overdenture treatment when supported by either four or six implants after 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous subjects with maxillary denture complaints and ample bone volume to facilitate implants in the anterior region of the maxilla were planned for implant overdenture treatment, randomized to receive either four implants (n = 25) or six implants (n = 25) and subsequently evaluated after 10 years of function. Outcome variables included peri-implant bone-level changes, implant and overdenture survival, complications, presence of plaque, calculus and bleeding, degree of peri-implant inflammation, probing depth and patient satisfaction. Differences between the groups and between evaluation periods were tested with a Student's t-test. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with totally 72 implants were lost to follow-up. Two patients from the six-implant group experienced implant loss (four implants), resulting in 96.1% implant survival in this group versus 100% survival in the four-implant group. Clinical, radiographical and patient-reported outcome measures did not differ statistically significant between the two groups. Patients from both groups were generally quite satisfied with the result after 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Similar and favourable outcomes are seen in bar-supported maxillary overdentures on either four or six anteriorly placed implants after a 10-year evaluation period.

The performance of two-implant overdentures in the atrophic maxilla: a case series with 1-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To assess the implant and prosthesis survival rates, the clinical, radiographical and patient-related outcome measures, and the masticatory performance of maxillary overdentures supported by two implants in patients with an atrophic maxilla. METHODS: In this case series, 15 consecutive patients who were eligible for maxillary implant overdenture therapy, but who had insufficient bone volume to place at least four implants and were unwilling to be treated with reconstructive surgery were asked to participate. After giving consent, participants received two implants in the maxilla under local anaesthesia. After 3 months of osseointegration, a maxillary overdenture with palatal coverage and solitary attachments was fabricated. Implant and overdenture survival, marginal bone level change, clinical outcome measures, masticatory performance and patient-related outcomes were evaluated at baseline and 1 year after overdenture placement. RESULTS: Fourteen out of 15 participants completed the follow-up period of 12 months. Implant and overdenture survival rate were 89.3% and 85.7%, respectively. Change in marginal bone level (- 0.5 ± 0.7 mm), change in probing depth (0.0 ± 1.0 mm), and clinical outcomes were favourable. Masticatory performance and patient-related outcomes improved significantly compared to baseline. Complications were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that patients with extreme resorption of the maxilla that are unwilling to be treated with reconstructive surgery, benefit from two-implant maxillary overdentures retained by solitary attachments in terms of improved masticatory functioning and denture satisfaction. However, they have relatively high risk of implant loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMCG Trial Register (RR201900060), registered 22 January 2019.

Maxillary bar overdentures on four or six posterior implants: 10-year results from a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes when providing maxillary overdentures on four and six splinted implants placed in the posterior region during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six edentulous participants with functional maxillary denture complaints and insufficient bone volume to allow implant placement were scheduled for a bone augmentation procedure. After healing, participants were randomized to receive either four or six implants in the posterior maxilla. After 3 months of osseointegration, a bar overdenture was constructed. Implant survival, overdenture survival, clinical scores, peri-implant bone height changes, and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-six participants completed the 10-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100% in the 4-implant group and 96.7% in the 6-implant group. Seven new overdentures were made in the 4-implant group and 12 new overdentures were made in the 6-implant group due to excessive wear of the denture base and teeth. Clinical parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Mean marginal bone loss compared to baseline was 0.41 ± 0.37 mm in the 4-implant group and 0.70 ± 1.07 mm in the 6-implant group. Overall, patient satisfaction improved significantly, but did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: From this 10-year follow-up trial, it was concluded that bar maxillary overdentures on four or six implants in the posterior region of an augmented maxilla resulted in a comparable treatment outcome with high implant survival, limited loss of peri-implant marginal bone, and high patients' satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR9729).