Volumetric Evaluations of Full-Arch Implant Supported Restorations and Their Role on Patients' Quality of Life: A Mixed-Model Analysis.

Introduction: Full-arch, implant-supported hybrid restorations, employing tilted implants, can offer an efficient way of treating edentulous patients. Several factors, such as the timing of implant placement and the inclination of the fixture, can have a detrimental effect on their stability. This retrospective study is aimed at discerning the role played by those factors. Materials and Methods: Patients treated with full-arch, implant supported restorations were selected for this study; cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, taken 3 months and 3 years after delivery of the final restoration, as well as peri-implant values, were obtained and compared; bone loss was measured on four sites for each implant and then averaged. These patients were recalled, and the OHIP-5 questionnaire was administered. Results: 21 patients, with a mean age of 53 years, were included in the present analysis. 108 implants were placed, and 25 Toronto prostheses were delivered. According to a mixed-model analysis, tilted implants (0.51, p < 0.001) had a higher rate of bone loss, while implants placed in a healed ridge suffered less bone loss than immediate implants (-0.21, p < 0.001). Patient-level variables have a significant effect on this variable, as implants coming from the same subject share a similar risk of bone loss. The mean response to the self-administered OHIP-5 questionnaire was 1.53 ± 0.29; other variables did not have a statistically significant effect on this outcome. Discussion/Conclusions. The results of the present study show that Toronto bridges prostheses are an efficient procedure for treating edentulous patients, as their oral-related quality of life is reported as satisfactory even 7 years after delivery of the restoration. Tilted and immediate implants are more at risk of bone loss. Implants coming from the same subject share a similar risk of bone loss.

Flapless Localised Management of Sinus Floor (LMSF) for trans-crestal sinus floor augmentation and simultaneous implant placement. A retrospective non-randomized study: 5-year of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Trans-crestal sinus lift procedures are well established. PURPOSE: to retrospectively analyse the efficacy of a flapless trans-crestal maxillary sinus floor elevation and simultaneous dental implant placement based on the Localised Management of Sinus Floor (LMSF) technique suitable for cases with sufficient width of keratinized tissue and of crestal bone but insufficient vertical dimensions of the bone below the sinus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 71 sinus elevations with simultaneous implant placement were performed on 52 consecutive patients. Following an initial pilot bur transmucosal perforation, the Magnetic Mallet was used with progressively larger osteotomes. The mallet osteotomes are initially directed palatally, towards the cortex of the medial wall of the sinus, below the palato-nasal recess (PNR) and then redirected in a more vertical direction to create the final osteotomy for implant placement. RESULTS: No significant complications were reported in the post-operative phase. The cumulative success rate during the observation period was 95%. All successful implants were successfully loaded with metal-ceramic or monolithic zirconia crowns and bridges and remained in function during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: Flapless Localised Management of Sinus Floor (LMSF) is a safe and effective surgical technique with minimal risks and with the advantage of low morbidity. Also, only native bone is used for augmentation and there is no need for additional grafting.

Comparison of Marginal Bone Loss Around Axial and Tilted Implants: A Retrospective CBCT Analysis of Up to 24 Months.

This clinical study retrospectively analyzed cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images to determine the potential influence of implant inclination on peri-implant marginal bone loss after 18 to 24 months of functional loading. Twenty-five consecutive patients presenting with an edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible and an adequate bone volume for receiving oral implants were selected for analysis of the marginal bone loss around tilted and/or axial implants. The study population included patients rehabilitated with Toronto bridges (TBs), fixed partial dentures (FPDs), or single crowns (SCs) on axial and/or tilted implants. The primary outcome was the CBCT analysis of peri-implant marginal bone level change, depending on inclination of implants and type of prostheses. The secondary outcome was analysis of survival and success rates of tilted and axial implants. A significant difference was observed for peri-implant buccal bone loss (mean of axials 0.42 ± 0.06; mean of tilted 0.70 ± 0.09) (P = .009). The difference in peri-implant lingual/palatal/mesial/distal bone loss was not significant between axial and tilted implants (P > .05). No significant difference was observed between the marginal bone level and the type of prostheses for both tilted and axial implants in all the assessed sites (P > .05). The success rate for both tilted and axial implants was 100%, and no complications were observed for all the prosthetic rehabilitations, with a 100% survival rate. Compared to axial implants, tilted implants showed a significant statistical difference for peri-implant buccal bone loss, but no other differences were observed for peri-implant bone loss or for implant survival and success rate. Fixed partial or total rehabilitation using tilted or axial implants, or with tilted and axial implants, could be a reliable technique with advantages to patients and operators.

Radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels of delayed implants at medium-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiographic bone level changes after delayed implant placement at medium-term follow-up, with three elements kept constant: keratinized gingiva thickness, implant axes perpendicular to the opposing occlusal surface, and implants with a collar of 2 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated in a private practice setting were retrospectively enrolled in the study. They underwent delayed placement (4 to 8 weeks after extraction) of dental implants in edentulous premolar or molar regions. Implants followed a delayed loading protocol. Crestal bone levels were measured at baseline; at provisional prosthesis placement; at 1, 3, and 5 years; and at medium-term follow-up of healing from implant placement. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients received 135 implants (one or two implants per patient); 3 implants were lost. After a mean follow-up period of 9.71 ± 4.88 years, a survival rate of 97.76% was reported. At 1 year after implant placement, mean bone loss of -1.5 ± 0.62 mm was found. At almost 3 years post-implant placement, a mean bone gain of +1.20 ± 0.49 mm was seen, which was statistically significantly different compared with 1 year. After this point, the bone levels remained stable; similar values were reported over time, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The mean vertical bone gain of +1.20 ± 0.49 mm seen at almost 3 years after implant placement in this study may be supported by both clinical parameters as presence of sufficiently thick keratinized gingiva (3 mm), implants with a 2-mm collar, and the axis of implant insertion perpendicular to the opposing occlusal surface.

Localized management of sinus floor technique for implant placement in fresh molar sockets.

BACKGROUND: The use of osteotome for vertical bone augmentation and localized sinus elevation with minimal surgical trauma represents a suitable procedure to increase the vertical dimension of available bone for implant placement. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report clinical and radiographic results of localized management of sinus floor (LMSF) in fresh molar sockets at 13-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients, needing one or two maxillary molar extraction, were enrolled in this study. LMFS procedure was performed and 68 implants were positioned. A presurgical distance from the alveolar crest to the floor of the maxillary sinus and the amount of new radiopacity between the sinus floor and alveolar crest were measured from the mesial and distal surfaces of each dental implant surface. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 9.76 ± 5.27 years (ranged from 4 to 17 years) a survival rate of 100% was reported. Mean bone height at temporary prosthesis placement was 7.99 ± 1.16 mm. They were stable over time, reporting a mean value of 8.01 ± 1.46 mm at 13-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated that LMSF procedure in fresh molar sockets allowed to expand the dimensions of resorbed posterior maxillary alveolar bone both vertically and horizontally with a success rate of 100% of implant osseointegration over time.