A 7.5-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: To compare marginal bone levels, biological, and technical outcomes of screw-retained versus cemented all-ceramic implant-supported zirconia-based single crowns after an observation period of 7.5 years. METHODS: Forty-four single implants in the esthetic zone in 44 patients (22 females, 22 males) were randomly assigned to two types of restorations: SR (screw-retained); veneered one-piece zirconia abutment and CR (cement-retained); veneered lithium disilicate crown intraorally cemented on a one-piece zirconia abutment. Patients were recalled annually up to 7.5 years and survival rates, biological, and technical parameters assessed. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients attended the 7.5-year follow-up visit (17 SR group, 14 CR group). The survival rate on the restorative level was 77.5% (74.0% CR, 81.0% SR, p = .6399). Median marginal bone loss (MBL) values yielded -0.073 mm (-0.305; 0.238) in the CR and -0.215 mm (-0.500; 0.555) in the SR group (intergroup p = .6194). Mean bleeding on probing (BoP) values were significantly in favor of group SR with 20 ± 17% compared to 40 ± 22% in group CR (p = .011). The overall biological complication rate amounted to 27.5% (42.1% CR, 14.3% SR, p = .0775), whereas the technical complication rate was 32.5% (42.1% CR, 23.8% SR, p = .314). In total, CR restorations showed significantly more complications (84.2% for CR, 38.1% for SR, p = .0041). CONCLUSION: One-piece zirconia-based single crowns on two-piece dental implants exhibited a high rate of technical and biological complications at 7.5 years of follow-up. Cemented restorations revealed significant higher rates of bleeding on probing and total complications compared to screw-retained restorations.

Survival and complication rates of tooth- and implant-supported restorations after an observation period up to 36 years.

BACKGROUND: Tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses are well-documented and aesthetic treatment alternatives, and after a comprehensive periodontal treatment, a protocol with a good long-term prognosis if the maintenance program is strictly followed. AIM: To reexamine a pre-existing patient cohort in order to obtain estimated long-term survival and complication outcomes of fixed dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, patients treated with fixed dental prostheses between 1978 and 2002 were reexamined between 2019 and 2020. The restorations were divided in single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by teeth (TSC, FPTDP) and implants (ISC, FPIDP). Survival and complication rates were obtained. Kaplan-Meier functions were used to model complication probabilities, and average hazard ratios of different strata were compared using weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: The mean observation time of 40 patients and 223 reconstructions was 20.3 (±9.7, 1.2-36.2) years. The estimated survival rates were 84% (CI: 77%-92%) for TSC, 63% (CI: 51%-79%) for FPTDP, 87% (CI: 71%-100%) for ISC, and 64% (CI: 34%-100%) for FPIDP after 25 years. Biological complications included carious lesions (10.6%), periodontitis (7.9%), and peri-implantitis (6.8%). Technical complications included chipping (20.2%) and loss of retention (10.8%). CONCLUSION: Biological complications lead to abutment loss in more than two-thirds of cases, regardless of the type of abutment (tooth or implant). Technical complications are less associated with abutment loss than biological complications.

Reasons for Crown Failures in Primary Teeth: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a tendency nowadays to restore large defects in primary dentition with pediatric crowns instead of conventional restorations. Thus, understanding the factors contributing to the survival or failure of dental crowns in pediatric dentistry is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this protocol is to outline the methodological approach for analyzing data from observational studies and randomized controlled trials to investigate reasons for the failure of dental crowns in primary teeth and to compute their survival and failure rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review will be performed in electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. As per predefined inclusion criteria, we will include observational studies (prospective clinical studies) and randomized clinical trials that have an English abstract and involve children aged 1-10 years undergoing crown restorations. Two independent reviewers will independently screen all retrieved records and full-text articles and extract data. The study's methodological quality will be appraised using suitable tools. Assessments of publication bias will be performed using funnel plots. The findings will be described qualitatively for the systematic review. If possible, a meta-analysis will be performed to estimate failure rates by dividing the number of failures by the total exposure time. A Poisson regression model, assuming constant event rates, will be used to compute 3-year and 5-year survival proportions. The Pearson goodness-of-fit statistics will be used to assess the heterogeneity of the model. A P value <.05 will be considered significant. All analyses will be performed using R Statistical software (version 4.1.2; R Core Team). RESULTS: This systematic review and synthesis aim to assess the survival and failure rates of dental crowns in pediatric dentistry. By following this rigorous methodology, we seek to provide valuable insights into the factors contributing to the success or failure of these restorations. The results of our full review will have implications for pediatric dentists, researchers, and policy makers, helping to improve dental care for children. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review protocol helps in establishing a thorough approach for reviewing failures in pediatric crowns. By following this methodology, standardization and transparency of the process as well as accountability for the stated methods and outcomes will be ensured. The findings of this review and analysis will provide useful data on the survival of crowns to pediatric dentists and researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023442266; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=442266. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51505.

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical, radiographic, biological and technical long-term outcomes of two types of dental implants over a period of 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight implants were placed in 64 patients, randomly allocated to one of two manufacturers (AST and STM). All implants were loaded with fixed restorations. Outcome measures were assessed at implant insertion (Ti), at baseline examination (TL), at 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 (T10) years. Data analysis included survival, bone level changes, complications and clinical measures. RESULTS: Re-examination was performed in 43 patients (23 AST and 20 STM) at 10 years. The implant level analysis was based on 37 (AST) and 32 (STM) implants. Survival rates of 100% were obtained for both groups. The median changes of the marginal bone levels between baseline and T10 (the primary endpoint) amounted to a loss of 0.07 mm for group AST and a gain of 0.37 mm for group STM (intergroup p = 0.008). Technical complications occurred in 27.0% of the implants in group AST and in 15.6% in group STM. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 29.7% (AST) and 50.1% (STM). The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 0% (AST) and 6.3% (STM). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the implant system used, the survival rates after 10 years were high. Minimal bone level changes were observed, statistically significant but clinically negligible in favor of STM. Technical complications were more frequently encountered in group AST, while group STM had a higher prevalence of peri-implant mucositis.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia dental implants-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: For the present review, the following focused question was addressed: In patients with root-analog dental implants, what is the effect of implants made of other materials than titanium (alloy) on implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), and technical and biological complications after at least 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic (Medline, Embase, Web of Science) search was performed to identify observational clinical studies published from January 2000 investigating a minimum of 20 commercially available zirconia implants with a mean follow-up of at least 60 months. Primary outcome was implant survival, secondary outcomes included peri-implant MBL, probing depths (PDs), and technical and biological complications. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate implant survival, MBL, and PD. RESULTS: From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 4 prospective and 2 retrospective observational clinical cohort studies were included for data extraction. Meta-analyses estimated after 5 years of loading mean values of 97.2% (95% CI 94.7-99.1) for survival (277 implants, 221 patients), 1.1 mm (95% CI: 0.9-1.3) for MBL (229 implants, 173 patients), and 3.0 mm (95% CI 2.5-3.4) for PDs (231 implants, 175 patients). CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years, commercially available zirconia implants showed reliable clinical performance based on survival rates, MBL, and PD values. However, more well-designed prospective clinical studies and randomized clinical trials investigating titanium and zirconia implants are needed to confirm the presently evaluated promising outcomes.

Risk Factors Associated with Failure and Technical Complications of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Implant-supported single crowns have become a routine approach for the replacement of missing single teeth, being considered as one of the most common ways of rehabilitation when adjacent teeth are healthy. The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the risk factors possibly associated with failure and technical complications of implant-supported single crowns and their supporting implants. Materials and Methods: Patients treated at one faculty (2009-2019) were considered for inclusion. Complications investigated included ceramic fracture/chipping, crown loss of retention/mobility, crown failure/fracture, loosening/loss/fracture of prosthetic screw, and implant failure/fracture. Any condition/situation that led to the removal/replacement of crowns (implant failure not included) was considered prosthesis failure. Univariate/multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the associations between clinical covariates and failure. Results: 278 patients (358 crowns) were included. Mean ± SD follow-up was 56.5 ± 29.7 months. Seven implants (after a mean of 76.5 ± 43.7 months) and twenty crowns (21.3 ± 23.5 months) failed. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) for crowns was 93.5% after 5, remaining at 92.2% between 6 and 11 years. The most common reasons for crown failure were porcelain large fracture (n = 6), crown repeatedly loose (n = 6), and porcelain chipping (n = 5). Men and probable bruxism were identified in the Cox regression model as being associated with crown failure. The most common observed technical complications were mobility of the crown and chipping of the ceramic material, with the latter being observed even in crowns manufactured of monolithic zirconia. Cases with at least one technical complication (not considering loss of screw hole sealing) were more common among probable bruxers than in non-bruxers (p = 0.002). Cases of ceramic chipping were more common among bruxers than in non-bruxers (p = 0.014, log-rank test). Conclusions: Probable bruxism and patient's sex (men) were factors associated with a higher risk of failure of implant-supported single crowns.

Long-Term Effect of Guided Implant Surgery on Clinical Outcomes and Peri-Implantitis of Maxillary Implants-An Observational Cohort Study.

(1) Although the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIP) is well reported, information on its long-term effect on peri-implant health and complications is scarce. (2) Twenty-six patients initially treated were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone level, peri-implant health, and complications were registered. A multilevel regression model was applied to study the relationship between the research variables. (3) Sixteen patients participated in this study (average age 58.5 years; range 27.8-73.8). The mean follow-up time was 9.1 years (range 7.3-11.3). Two implants failed, resulting in a survival rate of 97.1%. The mean bone level change corresponded to a loss of 0.63 mm (SD 1.90) for the whole group, 0.17 mm (SD 1.46), and 0.91 mm (SD 2.09) for tooth- and mucosa-supported guides, respectively. The mean PPD for the total group was 4.24 mm (SD 1.25), and 3.79 mm (SD 0.97) and 4.51 mm (SD 1.33) for the tooth- and mucosa-supported guides, respectively. Four implants (6.3%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Coronal deviation was slightly associated with having a negative impact on bone level at follow-up, but this was not statistically significant. Seven patients (43.8%) experienced technical complications. Biological complications were seen in 3/16 patients (18.75%). (4) SCAIP may contribute to more predictable implant placement; the long-term clinical outcome is similar to conventional nonguided surgery.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported zirconia fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension: A proof-of-principle study with a follow-up of at least 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability of full zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension (FDPCs) after at least 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients in need of implant-supported single unit crowns (SUC) and FDPCs in posterior areas were enrolled. After implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with screw-retained full-zirconia FDPCs. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP), and presence/absence of mechanical/technical complications were recorded. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e., recall appointment 3-6 months after implant loading [T0]) to the follow-up examination (i.e., latest recall appointment after at least 12 months after T0 [T1]), were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients with 34 FDPCs (31 SUCs and 3 FDPs) supported by 37 implants were available for analysis after a mean loading time of 2.6 ± 1.5 years (range: 13-87 months). No implants were lost. MBLs and mean PPD values did not change statistically significantly from T0 to T1 from 0.92 mm ± 0.42 to 0.96 mm ± 0.38 (95% CI: -0.07/0.17; p = .418) and from 2.99 mm ± 0.70 to 3.27 mm ± 0.71 (95% CI: -0.11/0.68; p = .25) respectively. Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 22 cases. Screw-loosening and zirconia chipping occurred 1× in 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present proof-of-principle study, the use of full-zirconia FDPCs in posterior areas seems a valid and safe short-term treatment option.

Reasons for Failure of CAD/CAM Restorations in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

AIM: The systematic review presented herein was performed to descriptively analyze the causes for the failure of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) restorations. The meta-analysis reported herein was performed to estimate long-term survival and success rates of CAD-CAM fabrications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PICOS paradigm, a systematic search was carried out in the PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies reporting survival data for CAD/CAM restorations. After selecting studies with a predefined set of selection criteria, data from included prospective clinical studies and RCTs were used for a systematic review aimed at a descriptive analysis of factors associated with failure of CAD-CAM restorations. Data from the included prospective clinical studies were used for meta-analysis, wherein 5-year and 10-year survival and success rates were estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: The systematic review included data from 9 RCTs and 6 observational studies, which had a median follow-up of 36 months and 60 months, respectively. About 58 failures and 118 technical/ biological complications were noted in the included RCTs and 9 failures along with 58 technical/biological complications were noted in the prospective clinical studies. Poisson regression indicated an estimated 5-year and 10-year survival rates of 85.55-100 and 71-100, respectively. The estimated 5-year and 10-year success rates were 74.2-92.75 and 33.3-85.5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Several technical and biological complications contribute to failure of CAD/CAM restorations. However, CAD/CAM restorations with routine chairside materials might have clinically meaningful success rates in the long term. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented herein indicate that optimal strategies for mitigation of biological and technical complications may augment the success of CAD/CAM fabrications in restorative dentistry. Studies aimed at identification of such strategies are needed to further enhance the long-term success rates of CAD/CAM restorations.

Technical complications with tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) of different span lengths: an up to 15-year retrospective study.

BACKGROUNDS: Long-span dental bridges may cause excessive load on abutment teeth and the periodontal area, which may lead to bridge fractures or periodontal problems. However, some reports have revealed that short- and long-span bridges can provide a similar prognosis. This clinical study aimed to investigate the technical complications associated with fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) of different span lengths. METHODS: All patients with previously cemented FDPs were clinically examined during their follow-up visits. Several data related to FDPs were registered, such as design, material type, location, and type of complication. The main clinical factors analyzed were technical complications. Life table survival analyses were performed to calculate the cumulative survival rate of FDPs when technical complications were detected. RESULTS: The study examined 229 patients with a total number of 258 prostheses and an average of 98 months of follow-up. Seventy-four prostheses suffered from technical complications, and the most common complication was ceramic fracture or chipping (n = 66), while loss of retention occurred in 11 prostheses. The long-term evaluation of long-span prostheses revealed a significantly higher technical complication rate compared to short-span prostheses (P = ,003). The cumulative survival rate for short-span FDPs was 91% in year 5, 68% in year 10, and 34% in year 15. For long-span FDPs, the cumulative survival rate was 85% in year 5, 50% in year 10, and 18% in year 15. CONCLUSION: Long-span prostheses (5 units or more) can be associated with a higher technical complication rate compared to short-span prostheses after long-term evaluation.

Incidence of Peri-Implantitis, Technical and Biological Complications of Single Implants Placed with Flap or Flapless Surgery-A 10-12-Year Case-Series.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up of single implants and crowns is scarce, especially when inserted using flapless surgery. AIM: Evaluate survival, peri-implantitis incidence, and technical/biologic complications of solitary implants/crowns after 10-12 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 49 patients with 53 single implants, initially operated with a one-stage flap (F) or flapless (FL) surgery and delayed loading, were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone-level changes compared to baseline, peri-implant health, and soft tissue aesthetics were registered. Differences in implant level between and within groups were statistically tested using the Mann-Whitney U-Test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, respectively. RESULTS: 36 patients with 40 implants were reassessed, yielding 100% implant and 97.5% crown survival. The bone loss in F (n = 19) was 0.56 mm (SD 0.89; range -0.9-2.02) and -0.85 mm (SD 0.98; range -2.84-0.53) in FL (n = 21), indicative of bone gain in FL (p = 0.003), the latter due to a difference at baseline but bone-level was comparable (p = 0.126). Groups were comparable for probing pocket depth (PPD); (3.32 vs. 3.19 mm), Bleeding Index (BI); (0.15 vs. 0.22), and gingival recession; (0.38 vs. 0.17 mm). According to international criteria, the peri-implantitis incidence was 0%, but 32.5% of the implants/crowns experienced biological or technical complications irrespective of surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Solitary implants and crowns show good long-term clinical outcomes and peri-implant health. Flapless surgery is a good alternative to conventional in straightforward cases with sufficient bone volume and proper treatment planning.

Spectrum of Complications and Complication Rates After Diagnostic Catheter Angiography in Neuroradiology.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the total complication rates and type of complications after diagnostic cerebral and spinal catheter angiography. METHODS: Data from 2340 patients undergoing diagnostic angiography over a period of 10 years in a neuroradiologic center were retrospectively evaluated. Local, systemic, neurological, and technical complications were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 75 clinically noted complications occurred. The risk for clinical complications was increased when the angiography was performed under emergency conditions (p = 0.009). The most common complication was groin hematoma (1.32%). Neurological complications occurred in 0.68% of patients, of which 0.13% were stroke with permanent disability. Technical complications without noticeable clinical symptoms of the patients occurred in 2.35% of the angiographic procedures. Deaths caused by angiography did not occur. CONCLUSION: There is a definite risk for complications after diagnostic angiography. Although a very broad spectrum of complications was considered, complications in the individual subgroups showed a low incidence.

Technical Complications of Removable Partial Dentures in the Moderately Reduced Dentition: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review with a subsequent meta-analysis on the technical complications and failures of removable partial denture (RPD) therapy in the moderately reduced dentition. A systematic literature search of established medical databases, last updated 06/2022, was conducted. RCTs and prospective and retrospective studies were included that had information on technical complications and failures of RPDs, at least 15 participants, an observation period of at least two years and a drop-out rate of less than 25%. Publications were selected on the title, abstract and full-text level by at least three of the participating authors. The evidence of the included studies was classified using the GRADE system. The bias risk was determined using the RoB2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool. Of 19,592 initial hits, 43 publications were included. Predominantly, retention of the prosthesis, retention loss of anchor crowns (decementations), fractures/repairs of frameworks, denture teeth, veneering or acrylic bases, and a need for relining were reported depending on prosthesis type and observation time. Focusing on technical complications and failures, only very heterogeneous data were found and publications with the highest quality level according to GRADE were scarce. Whenever possible, data on technical complications and failures should be reported separately when referencing the tooth, the prosthesis and the patient for comparability. Prostheses with differing anchorage types should be analyzed in different groups, as the respective complications and failures differ. A precise description of the kinds of complications and failures, as well as of the resulting follow-up treatment measures, should be given.

Survival rates, patient satisfaction, and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: a 12-month prospective study.

PURPOSE: To determine the survival rate, incidence of prosthetic complications, and patient satisfaction of implant fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs) after a mean observation period of 1.4 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight (28) eligible participants were recruited according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The definitive metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs consisted of titanium bars veneered with acrylic resin and acrylic denture teeth. Prosthodontic complications, divided into major and minor, were monitored. Parameters such as gender, jaw location, bruxism, and occlusal scheme were evaluated. Moreover, a questionnaire was administered throughout the study to assess patient satisfaction. Poisson regression as well as repeated measures ANOVA were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen (14) males and 14 females were enrolled and followed-up at 3, 6, and 12 months. All IFCDPs survived (100% survival rate). The most frequent minor complication was the loss of material used to close the screw access hole (20% out of total complications). The most frequent major complication was chipping of the acrylic denture teeth (77.14% out of total complications). Gender (p = 0.008) and bruxism (p = 0.030) were significant predictors for the total major complications (major wear and major chipping) while occlusal scheme was a significant predictor for major chipping events (p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: While IFCDPs demonstrated high prosthetic survival rates, they also exhibited a high number of chipping events of the acrylic veneering material, especially in males, bruxers, and individuals with canine guidance occlusion. However, the occurrence of these prosthetic complications did not negatively affect patient satisfaction.

Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.

Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions at 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL ), one (T1 ), three (T3 ), five (T5 ), and eight years (T8 ). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. RESULTS: Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: -0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: -0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL ) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible.

Health economic aspects of implant-supported restorative therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood how much additional dental care patients consume subsequent to implant therapy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate costs associated with implant-supported restorative therapy during the long-term follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Costs associated with preventive measures and complication-related procedures over a mean follow-up period of 8.2 years were assessed in patient files of 514 Swedish subjects provided with implant-supported restorative therapy. The restorative therapy and each of the subsequent interventions were assigned a specific cost. Accumulated costs were calculated in three categories: (i) total cost including initial restorative therapy and complication-related interventions, (ii) cost of preventive measures alone, and (iii) cost of complication-related procedures alone. Potential differences by background variables were analyzed using growth curve models. RESULTS: In the whole sample, costs during follow-up ranged from 878 € (95% CI 743; 1,014) for patients with single-tooth restoration(s) to 1,210 € (95% CI 1,091; 1,329) for subjects with full-jaw restoration(s). The majority of costs during follow-up originated from preventive measures (741 € 95% CI 716; 766). Among individuals receiving ≥1 intervention dealing with a complication (n = 253), complication-related costs amounted to 557 € (95% CI 480; 634). For patients with full-jaw restorations, the corresponding amount was 769 € (95% CI 622; 916). Procedures related to peri-implantitis and technical complications resulted in costs similar to each other. Implant loss generated greater costs than any other type of complication. CONCLUSIONS: Costs related to implant-supported restorative therapy during follow-up were associated with the extent of initial therapy. The higher costs during follow-up noted in patients provided with full-jaw restorations were explained by complication-associated procedures. Implant loss was the most costly type of complication.

Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). METHODS: This case series compared biological and technical complications in single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported bridges in a time framed sample of all patients who received dental implants between 2009 and 2016 in Dubai Health Authority. Only 3-unit implant-supported prostheses (FDPs) with one intervening pontic and an implant each end were included for comparison to single crown supported implants. Cantilevered implants, implant-supported dentures and cases involving bone grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. The primary outcome measure was marginal bone loss, measured on digital radiographs taken after prosthesis placement at baseline and one year after implant loading, whilst peri-implantitis and technical complications were secondary outcomes. Mixed regression models adjusted for clustering of implants within patients was used for patient and implant factor associations. RESULTS: A total of 454 patients (152 males; 302 females) had 1673 implants. The mean age of males (53.7 years, SD 14.6) was significantly greater than females (49.3 years, SD 12.9, p < 0.001). Mean mesial bone loss on the FDPs was significantly greater at 1 year (1.14 mm, SD 0.63) compared with the mesial surface of single implant-supported crowns (0.30 mm, SD 0.43, p < 0.001). Mean distal bone loss was also significantly greater at 1 year on the distal surfaces of implants supporting bridgework (1.29 mm, SD 0.71) compared with distal surfaces on single implant-supported crowns (0.36 mm, SD 0.54, p < 0.001). Mean marginal bone loss mesially and distally around implants placed in the lower anterior sextant was significantly greater compared to all other sites (p < 0.001). Bone loss by gender, patient's age and medical condition was not different between the 2 implant groups. Screw loosening was the main technical complication (11.5%) whilst peri-implantitis occurred rarely (0.5%). The 66 cement retained implants had significantly more complications compared to the 1607 screw retained implants (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mean marginal bone loss around the supporting implants of FDPs (3-unit fixed bridgework) was greater than on single implant-supported crowns at one year after implant loading. Position in the mouth was associated with bone loss. Biological and technical complications occurred rarely.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension. A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of at least 10 years.

AIM: To report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions (FDPCs) after a function time ≥10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with FDPCs in posterior areas were clinically and radiographically re-evaluated. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e. delivery of FDPC) to the follow-up examination were calculated and compared between implant surfaces adjacent to and distant from the cantilever extension. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) and presence/absence of mechanical/technical and biological complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 30 FDPCs supported by 60 implants were re-evaluated after a mean loading time of 13.3 ± 2.7 years (range: 10-18.6 years). One diameter-reduced implant carrying a cantilever extension fractured, yielding a patient-based survival rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 0.95/1.0). The mean marginal bone level change was not statistically significantly different from baseline to follow-up (1.2 mm ± 0.9 to 1.6 mm ± 1.7; 95% CI: -0.1/0.9; p > .05). The mean PPD changed statistically significantly from 3.4 mm ± 0.7 to 3.7 mm ± 0.7 (95% CI: 0.04/0.6; p = .02). Loss of retention occurred ≥ 1x in 9 patients (34.6%, 95% CI: 0.44/0.83). At follow-up, peri-implant health was diagnosed in 12 (46.2%), peri-implant mucositis in 7 (26.9%) and peri-implantitis in 7 (26.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of loss of retention, the use of implant-supported FDPCs in posterior areas represents a reliable long-term treatment option with a high implant survival rate and minimal peri-implant bone level changes irrespective of the location of the cantilever extension.

Occurrence and clustering of complications in implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the overall occurrence and potential clustering of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 596 patients provided with implant-supported reconstructions were evaluated for the occurrence of (a) technical complications, (b) peri-implantitis and (c) implant loss during a period of 9 years. Time and type of event were scored, and potential risk factors were explored through parametric modelling of survival and hazards. Clustering of complications was assessed at the patient level, and patient satisfaction was evaluated by questionnaire completed at the 9-year examination. RESULTS: 42% of patients were affected by technical and/or biological complications during the 9-year observation period. Extent of therapy (Hazard Ratio 2.5: patients with partial jaw restorations; HR 3.9: patients with full jaw restorations) and a history of periodontitis (HR 1.6) were identified as risk factors. While technical complications occurred mostly as isolated events, 41% of subjects identified with peri-implantitis and 52% of subjects with implant loss also presented with other complications. The hazard for technical complications and implant loss peaked at 0.7 years and 0.2 years, respectively, while the hazard for peri-implantitis was consistent throughout the observation period. The overall proportion of satisfied patients at 9 years was high (95%), and only minor differences between individuals with and without complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Complications following implant-supported restorative therapy were common findings. Extent of therapy and periodontitis were identified as risk factors. While technical complications occurred in an isolated pattern, peri-implantitis and implant loss demonstrated clustering with other types of complications.