Extraction of Maxillary Impacted Teeth with Simultaneous Immediate Full Mouth Loading Using Long Implant: A Case Report.

Here, we describe the provision of an implant-supported prosthesis in a patient with impacted teeth in the maxilla, which complicated implant placement and necessitated utilization of the extraction sockets of previously impacted teeth and residual submerged roots. The patient was a 63-year-old man who visited our clinic with the chief complaint of difficulty in mastication. Numerous residual roots were observed in the maxilla, and radiographic imaging revealed that the residual roots of teeth #13 and #16 were fully impacted. The patient complained of a strong sensation of a foreign body in the area of a denture support overlying these residual roots. Therefore, the impacted teeth were extracted, 5 implants placed, and a temporary prosthesis provided. Given the necessity of placing the implant through the extraction socket of the impacted canine (#13), favorable initial stability was achieved using a long (>20 mm) implant. Moreover, autogenous bone obtained by osteotomy was grafted onto the extracted impacted tooth socket. The clinical condition was stable at approximately 1 year after implant placement and so the final prosthesis was delivered, with periodic check-ups being performed every 3 months thereafter. After 4 years, the patient has reported no symptoms. Clinically, there are no signs of inflammation, and the postoperative condition is deemed to be very favorable.

A Study of the Associated Risk Factors for Early Failure and the Effect of Photofunctionalisation in Full-Arch Immediate Loading Treatment Based on the All-on-Four Concept.

Early implant failure occurring within 1 year after implantation has been attributed to various factors. Particularly, early failure can lead to challenges in maintaining a full-arch prosthetic device, necessitating prompt intervention, including reoperation. This study aimed to retrospectively examine implant- and patient-related factors and the effects of photofunctionalisation associated with early failure in patients who underwent treatment using the all-on-four concept in both the maxilla and mandible. We conducted this retrospective study comprising 561 patients with 2364 implants who underwent implant-supported immediate loading with fixed full-arch rehabilitation using the all-on-four concept. We aimed to assess the survival rate within 1 year after implantation and determine the risk factors influencing early failure. The 1-year survival rates after implantation were 97.1% (patient level) and 98.9% (implant level) for the maxilla and 98.5% (patient level) and 99.6% (implant level) for the mandible. There was a significant difference in the implant-level survival rates between the maxilla and mandible, with a lower rate in the maxilla (p = 0.043). The risk factors associated with early implant failure according to the all-on-four concept included the maxilla (implant level) and smoking (patient level). We could not find a significant effect of photofunctionalisation on early failure (p = 0.25) following this treatment protocol.

The All-on-four concept for fixed full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla and mandible: a longitudinal study in Japanese patients with 3-17-year follow-up and analysis of risk factors for survival rate.

PURPOSE: Implant-supported immediately loaded fixed full-arch rehabilitation via All-on-four treatment yields good long-term results for both the maxilla and the mandible. However, the risk factors affecting long-term implant survival are unknown, and the long-term prognosis of All-on-four concept procedures in Japanese individuals has not been elucidated. We aimed to determine the cumulative implant survival rate after 3-17-year follow-up and identify the associated risk factors. METHODS: We analysed 561 cases (307 maxillae, 254 mandibles) with 2364 implants (1324 maxillae, 1040 mandibles) that received All-on-four treatment. We investigated the cumulative implant- and patient-level survival rates and various risk factors for implant failure. Statistical analysis was performed using the log-rank test for differences in Kaplan-Meier curves, univariate analysis using the Chi-square test, and multivariate analysis for risk factors affecting the survival rate. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rate was 94.4% by patient level and 97.4% by implant level for the maxilla, and 96.7% by patient level and 98.9% by implant for the mandible, with up to 17 years of follow-up. The maxillary survival rate at the implant level was significantly lower (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the maxillary survival rate within 24 months was significantly lower at the implant level (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that the maxilla was the most significant risk factor (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: All-on-four treatment yielded high long-term survival rates in Japanese patients. However, the maxilla showed a significantly lower cumulative survival rate than the mandible, while early failure was significantly higher. Furthermore, the maxilla was a significant risk factor influencing the survival rate.