Does HIV infection have an impact upon dental implant osseointegration? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review is made to determine whether human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has an impact upon dental implant osseointegration. STUDY DESIGN: A PubMed (MEDLINE) literature search was made of articles published up until 14 April 2014. The systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The quality of the studies included in the review was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) and levels of evidence (based on the University of Oxford's Center for Evidence Based Medicine criteria). RESULTS: The combinations of search terms resulted in a list of 132 titles. Nine studies finally met the inclusion criteria and were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of 173 dental implants were placed in 80 patients (135 implants in 56 HIV-positive subjects and 38 implants in 24 HIV-negative patients), and a single loss of dental implant osseointegration was recorded in an HIV-positive patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that dental implant placement in HIV-positive patients does not increase the dental implant failure rate. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment, the administration of highly active antiretroviral therapy, and control of the CD4+ T lymphocyte counts appear to be the main influencing factors in this respect. Given the few studies included in our systematic review, further prospective studies involving larger sample sizes and longer durations of follow-up are required in order to confirm the results obtained

Oral rehabilitation with tilted dental implants: A metaanalysis

Objective: To compare the course of patients treated with tilted implants versus those treated conventionally with axial implants, analyzing the success rate and marginal bone loss.Material and Methods: A PubMed search was made using the key words "tilted implants", "angled implants", "angulated implants", "inclined implants" and "maxillary atrophy". A review was made of the articles published between 1999-2010. The inclusion criteria were the use of tilted implants, clinical series involving at least 10 patients, and a minimum follow-up of 12 months after prosthetic loading. The exclusion criteria were isolated clinical cases, studies with missing data, and publications in languages other than English or Spanish. The metaanalysis finally included 13 articles: 7 retrospective studies and 6 prospective studies.Results: On analyzing the success rate in the retrospective studies, two reported a higher success rate with tilted implants; one a higher success rate with axial implants; and two reported similar success rates with both implants. On analyzing the success rate in the prospective studies, two reported a higher success rate with tilted implants; two a higher success rate with axial implants; and two reported similar success rates with both implants. On examining marginal bone loss, three studies reported greater bone loss with axial implants and one with tilted implants.Conclusions: There was no evidence of differences in success rate between tilted and axial implants in either the prospective or retrospective studies subjected to review. The marginal bone loss observed with the tilted and axial implants likewise proved very similar. It thus can be deduced that tilted implants exhibit the same evolutive behavior as axial implants (AU)

Intraosseous anesthesia with solution injection controlled by a computerized system versus conventional oral anesthesia: A preliminary study

Objective: To compare a computerized intraosseous anesthesia system with the conventional oral anesthesia techniques, and analyze the latency and duration of the anesthetic effect and patient preference. Design: A simple-blind prospective study was made between March 2007 and May 2008. Each patient was subjected to two anesthetic techniques: conventional and intraosseous using the Quicksleeper(R) system (DHT, Cholet, France). A split-mouth design was adopted in which each patient underwent treatment of a tooth with one of the techniques, and treatment of the homologous contralateral tooth with the other technique. The treatments consisted of restorations, endodontic procedures and simple extractions.Results: The study series comprised 12 females and 18 males with a mean age of 36.8 years. The 30 subjects underwent a total of 60 anesthetic procedures. Intraosseous and conventional oral anesthesia caused discomfort during administration in 46.3% and 32.1% of the patients, respectively. The latency was 7.1±2.23 minutes for the conventional technique and 0.48±0.32 for intraosseous anesthesia - the difference being statistically significant. The depth of the anesthetic effect was sufficient to allow the patients to tolerate the dental treatments. The duration of the anesthetic effect in soft tissues was 199.3 minutes with the conventional technique versus only 1.6 minutes with intraosseous anesthesia - the difference between the two techniques being statistically significant. Most of the patients (69.7%) preferred intraosseous anesthesia. Conclusions: The described intraosseous anesthetic system is effective, with a much shorter latency than the conventional technique, sufficient duration of anesthesia to perform the required dental treatments, and with a much lesser soft tissue anesthetic effect. Most of the patients preferred intraosseous anesthesia (AU)

No disponible