Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros




Base de datos
Asunto de la revista
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 30(11): 1097-1106, 2019 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31400242

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patient population over a 3-year period and to compare it to observations of the population at the same clinic over a period of 15 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Records of patients receiving dental implants in the Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, University of Bern, between January 2014 and December 2016 were analyzed and then compared with data from patients treated between 2002 and 2004 and between 2008 and 2010. Patients were analyzed for demographics and for indications for therapy, as well as for presence or absence and type of complications. Inserted implants were analyzed for type, length, and diameter, as well as for the number and type of associated tissue regeneration procedures. RESULTS: Analysis revealed a continuous linear increase in the average age of patients seeking implant treatment. The most common indication for implant therapy was a single-tooth gap (STG) (50.5%), followed by distal extension situations (22.3%) and extended edentulous gaps (20.5%). A total of 60.8% of implants placed needed some type of bone augmentation, and 83.5% of implants placed in the anterior maxilla required simultaneous augmentation. Staged guided bone regeneration (GBR) was only necessary in 7% of the cases. Implant failure rates remained low at 0.6%, with postoperative hematomas being the most common postoperative complication (13.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The rising demand for dental implants continues as the patient population ages. Single-tooth gaps remained consistently the most common indication for implant therapy in recent years. Proper case selection and evidence-based surgical protocols are essential for high success rates.


Asunto(s)
Implantes Dentales , Fracaso de la Restauración Dental , Implantación Dental Endoósea , Humanos , Maxilar , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 29 Suppl 16: 215-223, 2018 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30328196

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS: A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.


Asunto(s)
Implantes Dentales , Prótesis Dental de Soporte Implantado , Odontología , Prostodoncia , Cerámica/uso terapéutico , Consenso , Coronas/normas , Pilares Dentales , Diseño de Implante Dental-Pilar/métodos , Implantación Dental Endoósea/normas , Implantes Dentales/estadística & datos numéricos , Materiales Dentales/uso terapéutico , Diseño de Prótesis Dental/métodos , Prótesis Dental de Soporte Implantado/métodos , Prótesis Dental de Soporte Implantado/normas , Fracaso de la Restauración Dental , Restauración Dental Permanente/normas , Dentadura Completa/normas , Dentadura Parcial Fija/normas , Humanos , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Aleaciones de Cerámica y Metal/uso terapéutico , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Circonio/uso terapéutico
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA