ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To systematically screen and summarise the available literature on when and how often it is advisable to perform supportive peri-implant care on implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses to maintain peri-implant health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes tool. A literature search was conducted on PubMed for randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies, reporting results on supportive peri-implant care for full-arch dental prostheses with a follow-up period of at least 1 year. The studies were selected in a blind process with an agreement rate of 100%. For all the included studies, quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: The application of the search terms on PubMed led to the selection of 915 results. Only 11 studies were included in the review. Eight of these reported the frequency of supportive peri-implant care, and three detailed the procedures adopted. The number of patients included ranged from 15 to 85, with a mean age from 60.4 to 68.4 years. None of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of implant-supported prostheses is a crucial aspect in the long-term care of patients rehabilitated with full-arch restorations. Although no specific indications can be drawn with respect to the frequency at which supportive peri-implant care should be delivered and the regime used to do so, practitioners should consider performing professional oral hygiene measures every 6 months and removing prostheses at least once per year. All interventions should be tailored to the patient's risk profile and characteristics.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Humans , Oral HygieneABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present observational study was to investigate the application of transmucosal tissue-level implants in immediate loading full-arch rehabilitation with different variables associated. METHODS: Patients needing a full-arch implant rehabilitation were recruited and rehabilitated with four transmucosal tissue level implants. Data related to implants' diameters and lengths, jaw distributions, and presence of angulated abutments were collected. The following outcomes were evaluated: survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), Plaque Index (PI), bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD). Descriptive statistical analysis was reported and univariate linear regression models were built to assess a significant correlation between MBL and the different implant related factors. RESULTS: Twenty patients were rehabilitated for a total implant number of 80; 11 rehabilitations were performed on the maxilla, while 9 were performed on the mandible; 48 implants presented a 3.8 mm diameter and 32 implants presented a 4.25 mm diameter. Implants length varied between 10 to 15 mm; 40 tilted implants were connected to angulated abutment, while 40 straight implants were connected directly to the prostheses (no abutments). At the one year follow-up visit no implants failed resulting in an implant survival rate of 100%. The overall MBL was 1.19±0.30 mm. No statistically significant difference (P>0.05) was highlighted among any of the subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different variables associated, tissue level implants seem to represent a valid option when applied in immediate loading full-arch rehabilitation. Further research and longer observational periods are encouraged to confirm the result.
ABSTRACT
Recently, tissue-level implants with a convergent collar have been introduced. While different studies have investigated the outcomes of this implant design in the rehabilitation of single teeth, its use in full-arch rehabilitation has yet to be investigated. The present case report describes the clinical outcomes of a full-arch immediate loading rehabilitation using tissue-level implants, with and without using implant-abutment units, with 2 years of follow-up. A female patient with mandibular terminal dentition and a high level of bone resorption (distal areas with a few millimeters of residual bone in the vertical dimension and both distal and anterior areas with narrow crestal bone in the horizontal dimension) was seen at the C.I.R Dental School, Turin, Italy. The patient was seeking to be rehabilitated with fixed prosthodontics, and she was found eligible for an immediate loading implant full-arch rehabilitation. Four implants were inserted in the same appointment. The two anterior implants were inserted straight and connected directly to the prosthesis (no abutments); the two distal implants were tilted in order to avoid the alveolar nerve and connected to two 30° angulated abutments. Two years post-implant placement, all of the implants were successfully integrated, resulting in an implant survival rate of 100%. The peri-implant soft tissues were stable at all the implant sites. No differences were highlighted between those implants with and without abutments. Within the limitations of the present clinical report, implant full-arch rehabilitations with tissue-level implants both with and without implant-abutment units showed optimal outcomes after two years of follow-up. Further research is encouraged to confirm whether this implant design may be a valid alternative to traditional implants in this type of rehabilitation, with or without implant-abutment units.
ABSTRACT
Background: The aim of the present multi-center split-mouth randomized control trial was to investigate the effect on peri-implant tissue of abutment with chromium nitride/ niobium nitride (CrN/NbN) coatings (superlattice) compared to traditional machined surface. Methods: Two adjacent posterior implants were inserted in 20 patients. A machined abutment was randomly screwed on either the mesial or distal implant, while a superlattice abutment was screwed on the other one. Implant survival rate, peri-implant probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding index (BI) were collected 6 months after surgery, while marginal bone loss (MBL) was evaluated at T0 and T6.; Results: Implant survival rate was 97.7%. A total MBL of 0.77 ± 0.50 mm was recorded for superlattice abutments, while a mean MBL of 0.79 ± 0.40 mm was recorded for the abutment with machined surface. A mean PPD of 1.3 ± 0.23 mm was recorded for the superlattice Group, and a mean PPD of 1.31 ± 0.3 was recorded for the machined surface Group. PI was of 0.55 ± 0.51 for superlattice Group and 0.57 ± 0.50 for machined Group, while BI was of 0.47 ± 0.49 for superlattice Group and of 0.46 ± 0.40 for the machined one. No statistically significant difference was highlighted between the two Groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: After a 6-month observational period, no statistically significant differences were highlighted between superlattice abutment and traditional machined abutment. Further in vitro studies as well as clinical research with longer follow-ups are required to better investigate the surface properties of the novel abutments' superlattice coating and its effect on the oral tissues.
