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.

Dental implants in dentate primary and secondary Sjögren's syndrome patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the clinical performance and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in dentate patients with primary and secondary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS and sSS, respectively) compared to patients without SS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven implants were placed in 17 patients with pSS/sSS and 26 implants in 17 non-SS patients to replace missing (pre)molars. 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 superstructure. Marginal bone-level changes were measured on standardized dental radiographs. Clinical parameters included implant and crown survival, plaque, bleeding and gingival indices, and probing depth. Patient satisfaction and OHRQoL were assessed with validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Implant survival at T18 was 100% in the patients with pSS/sSS and 96.2% in the non-SS group. Mean marginal bone loss at T18 did not differ between patients with pSS/sSS and non-SS patients, 1.10 ± 1.04 and 1.04 ± 0.75 mm, respectively (p = .87). Clinical performance was good with no differences between the groups for all outcome measures (p > .05). OHRQoL in patients with pSS/sSS had improved significantly after placement of implant supported crowns at all measuring moments compared to baseline (p < .05). Nevertheless, patient satisfaction and OHRQoL remained significantly higher for patients without SS at all measuring moments (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Dental implants can be successfully applied in dentate patients with pSS/sSS and have a positive effect on OHRQoL.

Performance of bone-level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5-year prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, and satisfaction of patients treated with single implant restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region 5 years after final restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients (29 male/31 female, mean age 37 years) with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla (39 central incisors/10 lateral incisors/5 cuspids/6 first premolars) received a bone-level implant with conical connection. In 29 patients, a bone augmentation procedure was necessary before implant placement (autogenous bone grafts mixed with spongiosa granules). All implants (12 with 3.3 mm diameter/ 48 with 4.1 mm diameter) were loaded after 3 months of submerged healing. The restoration consisted of an individually designed full-zirconia abutment veneered with porcelain. Follow-up with clinical and radiographic assessment was conducted until 60 months after the final restoration. Aesthetic outcome of the restoration was determined with the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). Patient satisfaction was assessed with a VAS scale and satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100%, restoration survival 98%. Mean bone-level change was -0.13 ± 0.66 mm with a median (IQR) pocket probing depth of 2.75 [2.25; 3.25]. The mean PES and WES scores were 6.6 ± 1.7 and 7.8 ± 1.5, respectively. Patient satisfaction was high (92.1 ± 7.8 on 100 mm VAS scale). There were no differences between patients with or without a bone augmentation procedure. CONCLUSION: Bone-level implants with a conical connection are a reliable treatment option in single-tooth replacements in the maxillary aesthetic zone.

Performance of the Straumann Bone Level Implant system for anterior single-tooth replacements in augmented and nonaugmented sites: a prospective cohort study with 60 consecutive patients.

AIM: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate radiographic, clinical and aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction of cases treated with platform-switched single implant restorations in the aesthetic region of the maxilla. Furthermore, the influence of an augmentation procedure 3 months before implant placement and the type of restoration (screw-retained vs. cement-retained) was evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were treated with a Straumann Bone Level Implant. Bone augmentation was performed in 29 patients at 3 months before implant placement. Implants were loaded after 3 months of submerged healing. Follow-up was conducted at 7 and 18 months after implant placement. Peri-implant mucosa and implant crown aesthetic outcomes were determined using the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI) and the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). RESULTS: No implants were lost. At 18 months after implant placement, mean bone level change was -0.10 ± 0.27 mm and mean probing pocket depth was 2.57 mm. No differences were found between augmented and nonaugmented sites (P = 0.28). The ICAI indicated satisfactory mucosa and crown aesthetics in 67% and 75% of the cases, respectively, while the PES score was 14.4. ICAI mucosa (P = 0.004) and PES (P = 0.02) scores were significantly less favourable for augmented sites compared with nonaugmented sites. Patient satisfaction was high (8.9 ± 1.1 on VAS-score). CONCLUSIONS: From the present prospective, clinical study, it can be concluded that the Straumann Bone Level Implant shows an excellent survival rate, marginal bone stability and good clinical and aesthetic results. Bone augmentation before implant placement does not lead to more marginal bone loss. However, less favourable pink aesthetic outcomes were found in augmented sites compared with nonaugmented sites, while no differences were found between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations.

Trauma to an implant-supported crown that was saved by the fixation screw: a case report.

A traumatic impact to an implant-supported crown might damage the implant, restoration and peri-implant tissues. Ideally, only a small prosthetic retreatment is needed for restoration, as complicated prosthetic retreatments or surgical retreatments in particular, could be very inconvenient for the patient. However, there is a deficiency in literature on how the implant, restoration and surrounding tissues generally react to impact forces. This report demonstrates a case of trauma to an implant-supported crown in the maxillary anterior zone resulting in a displacement of the implant crown. After careful examination and follow-up, it appeared that only the fixation screw was damaged, whereas the implant, restoration and peri-implant tissues remained unharmed. Thanks to the protective qualities of the implant system, an easy prosthetic retreatment could restore the implant-supported crown and a surgical retreatment was prevented.

Occlusal wear of provisional implant-supported restorations.

BACKGROUND: Implant-supported provisional restorations should be resistant to occlusal wear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate three-body wear of three indirect laboratory composite resins, five chair side bis-acryl resin-based materials, and two chair side methacrylate-based materials used to fabricate provisional implant-supported restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The materials were handled and cured according to the manufacturers' instructions. The three-body wear was measured 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after curing using the ACTA wear device. RESULTS: Wear rate decreased significantly after 8 weeks compared with the first day for all tested materials, except for Estenia C&B. The three-body wear of two indirect laboratory composite resins, that is, Estenia C&B and Solidex, was significantly less compared with all other tested materials used for fabricating provisional implant-supported restorations. Of the chair side materials, the wear rate of Protemp Crown Paste was significantly less compared with the others materials used to fabricate chair side provisional implant-supported restorations. The methacrylate-based materials, Temdent Classic and Trim, showed extreme high wear rates. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this laboratory study on long-term wear, the use of indirect composite resin is preferred over chair side methacrylate-based materials when the provisional implant-supported restoration has to be in service for a long period of time. Of the investigated materials, only Estenia C&B and Solidex showed wear rate comparable with posterior resin composites.

A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles--results from a 1-year observation period.

BACKGROUND: The use of endosseous dental implants has become common practice for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients, and a two-implant overdenture has been recommended as the standard of care. The use of small-diameter implants may extend treatment options and reduce the necessity for bone augmentation. However, the mechanical strength of titanium is limited, so titanium alloys with greater tensile and fatigue strength may be preferable. PURPOSE: This randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter study investigated in a split-mouth model whether small-diameter implants made from Titanium-13Zirconium alloy (TiZr, Roxolid™) perform at least as well as Titanium Grade IV implants. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with an edentulous mandible received one TiZr and one Ti Grade IV small-diameter bone level implant (3.3 mm, SLActive®) in the interforaminal region. The site distribution was randomized and double-blinded. Outcome measures included change in radiological peri-implant bone level from surgery to 12 months post-insertion (primary), implant survival, success, soft tissue conditions, and safety (secondary). RESULTS: Of 91 treated patients, 87 were available for the 12-month follow-up. Peri-implant bone level change (-0.3 ± 0.5 mm vs -0.3 ± 0.6 mm), plaque, and sulcus bleeding indices were not significantly different between TiZr and Ti Grade IV implants. Implant survival rates were 98.9 percent and 97.8 percent, success rates were 96.6 percent and 94.4 percent, respectively. Nineteen minor and no serious adverse events were related to the study devices. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that TiZr small-diameter bone level implants provide at least the same outcomes after 12 months as Ti Grade IV bone level implants. The improved mechanical properties of TiZr implants may extend implant therapy to more challenging clinical situations.