Technique Using a Novel Verification Guide for Complete Seating of Open-Tray Impression Copings.

The purpose of impression-taking is to attain the accurate transfer of intraoral information for extraoral use. It is a crucial step in performing a successful dental implant restorative procedure. To accurately replicate the implant position for adaptation of an abutment that will completely engage with the implant, a pick-up impression is taken with an impression coping. Several factors can affect seating of the impression coping, including soft-tissue interference, the size of the impression coping, angulation, proximity or contact with adjacent teeth, damage to the coping, misfit caused by use of other manufacturers' parts, and differences between seating in an external- versus internal-connection implant. This article presents use of a novel verification guide that is intended to ensure complete seating of the impression coping with the implant.

Is osteoporosis a risk factor for implant survival or failure?

Data sourcesAn electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library and SciELO databases up to September 2016. References of included studies were also searched. English language restriction was applied.Study selectionClinical monitoring studies with at least six months of follow-up, including retrospective studies, prospective studies, and controlled and randomised clinical trials. Clinical case studies were excluded from the sample and only studies with a minimum of five patients were considered. Adults with osseointegrated implants were considered for these studies. Exclusion criteria encompassed studies performed in vitro, animal studies, non-controlled clinical cases, studies with incomplete data or those unsuitable for data collection.Data extraction and synthesisFour reviewers were involved in the research and screening process and disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of the studies was analysed using the bias scale from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Data extracted from the studies included, when available: author, year of publication, study country of origin, number of patients, number of implants and sites, implant type, implant length and diameter, oral rehabilitation installation time, peri-implant bone loss rate, survival rate of implants in each situation analysed, follow-up time of each study, study type and drugs administered for the treatment of osteoporosis. For binary outcomes (implant failure) the estimate of the intervention effect was expressed in the form of a relative risk (RR) with the confidence interval (CI) of 95%. For continuous outcomes (marginal bone loss) the average and standard deviation (SD) were used to calculate the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. A statistical test was used to express the heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was explored as well.ResultsA total of 15 observational studies were included in the review. The total number of patients involved was 8859 (29,798 implants) and the average age was 63.03 years.The follow-up period ranged from 0.75 to 22 years with a mean of 5.85 years. The smallest diameter used was 3.3 mm and the shortest implant length was 7 mm.The relative risk (RR) of implant failure and mean marginal bone loss were analysed within a 95% confidence interval (CI). The main outcome of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference in implant survival rate between patients with and without osteoporosis, either at the implant level (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93-2.08; P = 0.11) or at the patient level (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50-1.89; P = 0.94). However, the meta-analysis for the secondary outcome revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between patients with and without osteoporosis (0.18 mm, 95% CI 0.05-0.30, P = 0.005). Data heterogeneity was low. An increase in peri-implant bone loss was observed in the osteoporosis group.ConclusionsThe implant survival rate in bone tissue with osteoporosis was similar to that of the control group at the implant level (P = 0.11) and at the patient level (P = 0.94). In conclusion, implants placed in patients with systemic osteoporosis did not present higher failure rates than those placed in patients without osteoporosis.

The Role of Dietary Supplements in Postsurgical Bleeding: An Update for the Practitioner.

In the United States, dietary supplement use in adults aged 20 and older has increased significantly in the last 2 decades. Intraoperative and postoperative bleeding has been among the complications linked with usage, which is particularly problematic if patients do not disclose use to the dental practitioner. The aim of this article is to present a case report of a patient who had been taking dietary supplements for only 1 month and developed severe bleeding after receiving second-stage implant abutment insertion surgery. The article also presents a review of several supplements that can increase the risk for bleeding complications.