Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels around implants supporting splinted fixed bridges: A retrospective study on 412 implants.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of the implant position within the prosthesis on bone remodeling is scarcely documented so far. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether central implants may suffer higher peri-implant marginal bone levels (MBL) compared to laterals in case of fixed splinted bridges supported by ≥ three implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Partially edentulous subjects rehabilitated with at least one fixed bridge supported by ≥ three dental implants were enrolled. MBL was assessed radiographically by means of intraoral radiographs acquired with phosphor plates and imported in a dedicated software. MBL was calculated as the distance between the implant platform level and the most coronal visible bone-to-implant contact. A three-level linear mixed effects model was used for investigating the fixed effect of patient-, prosthesis-, and implant-level variables on the MBL. RESULTS: Overall, 90 patients rehabilitated with 130 splinted fixed bridges supported by 412 implants were included. The median follow-up was 136 months. The mean peri-implant MBL resulted statistically significantly higher at central implants if compared to lateral implants (p < .01). The estimated MBL averages for central and external implants were 1.68 and 1.18 mm, respectively. The prosthesis-level variables suggested that a cement-retained bridge was prone to a significant 0.82 mm higher MBL than a screw-retained one. Implant surface showed an association with MBL changes, although less pronounced than implant retention. CONCLUSIONS: In case of ≥3 adjacent implants supporting splinted bridges, central implants were more predisposed to MBL compared to laterals. At the prosthesis level, implants supporting cement-retained bridges were statistically more susceptible to MBL compared to screw-retained ones. Surface characteristics can also influence MBL stability at the implant level.

A randomized, multicenter, double-blinded parallel study to evaluate the safety and performance of zoledronate-coated versus uncoated dental implants in partially edentulous patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient safety, implants survival and implant stability of the bisphosphonate (zoledronate) as a coating on dental implants in patients requiring oral rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study, 62 patients were randomized to receive either zoledronate-coated or uncoated control implants in the premolar or molar area of the maxilla, using a one stage-protocol. Due to dropouts and exclusion 49 patients completed the study. The implants were examined by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) using an implant stability quotient (ISQ) scale at the time of insertion, and at 8 weeks, and after 12 weeks prior to prosthetic restoration. Radiographs were taken prior to surgery, directly after insertion, and during the follow-up at 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year to analyze changes in marginal bone levels (MBL). Finally, all complications and adverse effects (AE) were observed and recorded. RESULTS: Out of 62 included patients, 49 patients completed the study. No AE were reported by patients receiving zoledronate-coated implants. There was no statistically significant difference between the zoledronate-coated or uncoated implant groups when comparing ISQ levels at insertion and after 12 weeks of healing, the mean of the ISQ values demonstrated a change of 4.64 (95% confidence interval: 15.46; 5.79, p = 0.43) between the two groups. At 8- and 12-weeks, ISQ values remained stable (range 62-70). Radiographic analysis showed no statistically significant difference in MBL between the two implant groups after 1 year of loading neither at the mesial side (p = 0.99) or the distal side (p = 0.97). MBL for coated implants were 0.57 mm at the mesial side and 0.46 mm at the distal side. For the uncoated implants, MBL was 0.48 mm at the mesial side and 0.47 mm at the distal side. CONCLUSION: The zoledronate-coated dental implants are safe to use in a one-stage surgery protocol in patients requiring oral rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla, after 1 year of loading. There were no statically significant changes in implant stability and marginal bone levels measured by intraoral radiographs in comparison to uncoated control implants.

Maxillary labial peri-implant hard and soft tissue alteration observed on cross-sectional dimension: a 2-year prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how peri-implant hard and soft tissue height (BH, MH) alter after final prostheses placement related to labial hard and soft tissue thickness (BW, MW). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five platform-switched implants were classified into four groups according to BW and MW: type 1 (thick BW and thick MW), type 2 (thick BW and thin MW), type 3 (thin BW and thick MW), type 4 (thin BW and thin MW). Tissue resorption was evaluated on cone-beam CT images taken at final prostheses placement, at 1-year follow-up, and at 2-year follow-up. Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc Mann-Whitney test were applied; significance was set to 0.05. RESULTS: BH resorption was 0.13 ± 0.12 mm in type 1, 0.26 ± 0.17 mm in type 2, 0.09 ± 0.09 mm in type 3, 0.94 ± 0.19 mm in type 4. Differences between type 1 and 4, type 2 and 4, and type 3 and 4 were statistically significant (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p < 0.001, respectively). MH resorption was 0.10 ± 0.09 mm in type 1, 0.36 ± 0.16 mm in type 2, 0.12 ± 0.12 mm in Type 3, 0.79 ± 0.23 mm in type 4. Differences between type 1 and 2, type 1 and 4, type 2 and 3, type 2 and 4 and type 3 and 4 were statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly less BH/MH resorption occurs around implants with thick BW/MW than those with thin BW/MW in 2 years. Implants with thick peri-implant soft tissue resulted in significantly less tissue resorption in second year after final prostheses placement.

'Butterfly': a residual bone independent technique for one-stage sinus lift.

A 29-year-old woman with an extreme pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus and a missing molar was treated with one-stage sinus lifting and implant placement in a novel surgical approach.

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Risks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1-3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1-3 years follow-up (MD=-0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=-0.25 mm, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: For atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm). TRIAL REGISTERATION NUMBER: The protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Complex Dental Implant Cases: Algorithms, Subjectivity, and Patient Cases Along the Complexity Continuum.

Algorithms for predictable outcomes, or checklists in health care, have been widely supported due to their highly effective outcomes. This article shares "algorithmic roadmaps" to restore single-tooth, partially edentulous, and fully edentulous complex dental implant cases in the patient population. A review of the current literature is presented to provide systematic assessments followed by criteria in a checklist format that allows the surgeon and restorative dentist to determine whether a removable or fixed implant prosthesis is the best patient option. Several cases have been chosen to illustrate the algorithms the authors used to provide an optimized prognosis for surgical/restorative success.

Piezoelectric Surgery in the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Lateralization With Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Case Report.

The aim of this case report was to describe the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) lateralization technique using the piezoelectric device for the posterior rehabilitation of an atrophic mandible with implants. The patient presented the absence of elements 35 and 36 associated with a vertical defect impairing the adequate dental implant placement without IAN damage. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was raised, and a bone window was made with a piezoelectric device centralized on the IAN canal position. After dissection, the IAN was moved buccally with a sterile elastic strip. Morse cone 4.0 × 1.5-mm implants were inserted while the IAN remained retracted. At the 4-month follow-up, the screw-retained prosthesis was installed guaranteeing the recovering masticatory function. In conclusion, the case report showed that the IAN lateralization performed with an adequate surgical technique can be successfully indicated for longer implant placement in edentulous atrophic posterior mandible with no permanent neural damage.

Short implants versus bone augmentation in combination with standard-length implants in posterior atrophic partially edentulous mandibles: systematic review and meta-analysis with the Bayesian approach.

The use of short implants as an alternative to bone reconstruction techniques for the placement of standard-length dental implants is a debated topic. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to assist in the clinical decision making about the most appropriate approach for the fixed rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic partially edentulous lower jaws. Only randomized trials with at least 1-year follow-up were included. Of the 1024 studies initially retrieved, 14 articles were selected and independently evaluated by two reviewers. Finally, four studies were included, and underwent data extraction and meta-analysis with the Bayesian approach. Both treatment approaches provide high implant survival rate after 1year of function. However, the probability of survival rate of short implants being greater than standard length implants is 84%, and the probability of complications using short implants being greater than standard-length implants is 15.7%. In spite of similar survival rates when the residual bone is sufficient for placement of short implants, the latter should be preferred to augmentation techniques and standard-length implants due to fewer complications, lower morbidity and greater comfort for patients.

15-year follow-up of short dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient: Mandible Vs maxilla.

There is paucity of the studies that assess the outcomes of short dental implants with a follow-up time higher than 10years. This study aims to evaluate the long-term (15years) survival and marginal bone loss around short dental implants and assess the influence of the anatomical location (mandible or maxilla) on these outcomes. A clinical retrospective study of short dental implants (≤8.5mm) was conducted in a single private dental clinic. The predictor variable was the anatomical location (mandible or maxilla). The primary outcome was the dental implant survival rate. The secondary outcomes were the marginal bone loss, the prosthesis failures and the influence of anatomical location, the antagonist type, and the clinical/anatomical crown-to-implant ratio (CIR) on the marginal bone loss and implant success rate. Descriptive analysis was performed for patients' demographic data, implant details, and prosthetic variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess the implant survival rate. Fifty patients with a mean age of 59±10years had a mean follow-up time of 15years. Seventy five implants were placed being 30 in the maxilla and 45 in the mandible. The implant position did not affect significantly the implant survival. The marginal bone loss has been significantly higher in the maxilla than the mandible. The implant survival rate was 93.3%. Short dental implants could be indicated to support fixed partial prosthesis in the mandible and the maxilla. Implant position may affect the marginal bone loss around the short dental implants.

Preliminary Study to Evaluate Marginal Bone Loss in Cases of 2- and 3-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Prostheses of the Posterior Mandible.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, by radiographic examinations, the marginal bone resorption around implants in cases of 2 and 3 implant-supported fixed partial prostheses (FPPs) at the posterior mandible. METHODS: A retrospective study of 41 patients (23 males, 18 females) of an average age of 67 years (range, 53-85), with 2 and 3 implants-supported FPPs in the posterior mandible that were treated during 2006 to 2015. The mean follow-up time was 6.32 years (range, 2-10). Twenty-four patients had FPPs on 2 implants (a total of 48 implants). Seventeen patients had FPPs on 3 implants (a total of 51 implants). Clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations were performed. All radiographs were analyzed for changes in marginal bone height surrounding the implants. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone loss around the most mesial implant was slightly higher in the 2-implant group (0.833 mm) compared with the 3-implant group (0.431 mm). The correlation between the mean marginal bone loss around the most mesial implant and the number of implants was of borderline value (P = 0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limitations of this preliminary study, the authors found that the mesial implant in the 2-implant group is more susceptible to marginal bone loss.

Clinical Concerns Regarding Dentition and Connections to Osseointegrated Implants: A Systematic Review of Implant Restoration Trends and Treatment of Partial Edentulism.

Issues associated with missing teeth can be found in almost all age groups. For edentulous patients, osseointegration is a highly efficient treatment. However, certain biochemical challenges are presented when osseointegrated implants are taken into consideration due to the periodontal ligament. Therefore, the current study focuses on clinical concerns that can occur with the use of dental implants and examines different trends of implant restoration and treatment of partial edentulous patients. Data were collected from ten research articles and analyzed by means of a qualitative secondary approach. The findings of the current study indicate that restoration and preservation of natural teeth are significant in the development of dental practices. Moreover, the determinant of endodontic treatment is considered to be a key factor in the retention and reconstruction of tooth functioning that is influenced by necrosis of dental pulp. We conclude that the osseointegration method is significant and highly effective for treating edentulous patients.

Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether 6.6-mm long implants could be a suitable alternative to longer implants placed in vertically augmented atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients having 7 to 8 mm of residual crestal height and at least 5.5-mm thickness measured on computed tomography scans above the mandibular canal were randomly allocated according to a parallel-group design either to receive one to three submerged 6.6-mm long implants or 9.6-mm or longer implants (30 patients per group) placed in vertically augmented bone. Bone was augmented with interpositional anorganic bovine bone blocks fixed with titanium plates and covered with resorbable barriers. Grafts were left to heal for 5 months before implant placement. Four months after implant placement, provisional acrylic prostheses were delivered, replaced, after 4 months, by definitive metal-ceramic prostheses. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, complications, and radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Patients were followed up to 8 years after loading. RESULTS: Eight years after loading 12 patients dropped out, five from the short implant group and seven from the augmented group. The augmentation procedure failed in two patients and only 6.6-mm long implants could be inserted. There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures. Four prostheses failed in three patients of the short implant group versus three prostheses in three patients of the augmented group (Fisher exact test P = 1.000; difference in proportions = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.22). Five short implants failed in three patients versus three long implants in three patients (Fisher exact test P = 1.000; difference in proportions = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.22). There were statistically more complications in augmented patients (27 complications in 22 augmented patients versus 9 complications in 8 patients of the short implant group) (Fisher exact test P < 0.001; difference in proportions = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.79). Both groups gradually lost peri-implant bone in a statistically significant way. Eight years after loading, short implant group patients lost an average of 1.58 mm of peri-implant bone compared with 2.46 mm in the augmented group. Short implants experienced statistically significantly less bone loss (0.88 mm, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.26 mm) than long implants. CONCLUSIONS: When residual bone height over the mandibular canal is between 7 and 8 mm, 6.6-mm short implants are an interesting alternative to vertical augmentation in posterior atrophic mandibles since the treatment is faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity.

Do Penicillin-Allergic Patients Present a Higher Rate of Implant Failure?

PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical study was to determinate if patients allergic to penicillin present a higher incidence of dental implant failure compared with nonallergic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional clinical study analyzed patients rehabilitated with endosseous dental implants between September 2011 and July 2015, at the University Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, International University of Catalonia (UIC). Prophylactic antibiotic therapy was prescribed for all patients: a single dose of 2 g of amoxicillin taken orally 1 hour before implant surgery for non-penicillin-allergic patients, and 600 mg of clindamycin taken orally 1 hour before the implant surgery for penicillin-allergic patients. Postsurgical antibiotics were prescribed to prevent early implant failures and postoperative infections: amoxicillin 750 mg three times a day for 7 days for nonallergic patients, and in patients with penicillin allergy, 300 mg clindamycin every 6 hours for 7 days. Implant failure was defined as the removal of the implant for any reason and was classified as early or late failure. RESULTS: A total of 1,210 patients' files were analyzed; 8.03% of nonallergic patients and 24.68% of penicillin-allergic patients presented at least one implant failure. In penicillin-allergic patients, 21.05% were classified as late implant failure and 78.95% as early implant failure, with a lack of osseointegration (80%) being the mean reason for an early implant failure. Penicillin-allergic patients demonstrated a higher risk of implant failure with a risk ratio of 3.84 (95% CI) compared with nonallergic patients. CONCLUSION: Penicillin-allergic patients treated with clindamycin presented almost four times the risk of suffering dental implant failure, although other variables such as implant brand, location, and the surgeon's skill might have influenced these results.

Implant supported cantilevered fixed dental rehabilitations in partially edentulous patients: Systematic review of the literature. Part I.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate in which clinical situations a cantilever fixed implant supported restorations can be a treatment alternative and which complications are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two operators screened the literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and performed a hand search on the main journals dealing with implantology and prosthetics until 31 December 2017. Only articles that considered cantilever implant fixed restorations with at least 10 patients and with a mean follow-up of at least 5 year were selected. The outcome variables were survival of implants and prosthesis, mechanical, technical and biological complications, marginal bone loss. The review was performed according to the PRISMA statements. Risk of bias assessment was evaluated. Failure and complication rates were analysed using random effect Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimate of 5- and 10-year survival and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of nine papers were selected for partially edentulous patients and reported high survival rate of the prosthesis. The estimated survival rate for 5-10 years was calculated to be 98.4% for the implants and 99.2% for the rehabilitations. Mechanical, technical and biological complications were reported with a cumulative 5-10 years complication rate of 28.66% and 26.57% for the patients and for the prosthesis, respectively. Two papers for single implant supporting 2-unit cantilever were not sufficient to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that cantilever can be successful treatment in partially edentulous patients. In two adjacent edentulous sites, data are not yet sufficient.

Biomechanical aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present publication was to report on the EAO Workshop group-4 discussions and consensus statements on the five reviews previously prepared. These reviews provided the scientific evidence on the effect of crown-to-implant ratio, on reconstructions with cantilevers in fully and partially edentulous patients, on biological and technical complications of tilted in comparison with straight implants, and on the effects of osseointegrated implants functioning in a residual dentition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The group discussed, evaluated, corrected where deemed appropriate, and made recommendations to the authors regarding the following five reviews submitted: (a) Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes?; (b) Implant-supported cantilevered fixed dental rehabilitations in fully edentulous patients; (c) and in partially edentulous patients; (d) Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses; (e) What are the adverse effects of osseointegrated implants functioning among natural teeth of a residual dentition? Based on the five manuscripts and the discussion among the group as well as the plenum members, the major findings were summarized, consensus statements were formulated, clinical recommendations were proposed, and areas of future research were identified. RESULTS: Crown-to-implant ratios ranging from 0.9 to 2.2 did not influence the occurrence of biological or technical complications also in single-tooth restorations. Reconstructions with cantilevers for the rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous jaws showed high implant and reconstruction survival rates. In contrast, the rate of complications-in particular associated with veneering material-was high during the observation period of 5-10 years. The data reported were primarily derived from studies with high risk of bias. The data for single-implant reconstructions were small. There was no evidence that distally tilted implants were associated with higher failure rates and increased amounts of marginal bone loss. The data supporting these findings, however, were at high risk of bias and frequently incompletely reported. Frequent positional changes occurred between the natural teeth and the implant-supported restorations. These changes were more pronounced in younger individuals, and even though they were reduced with age, they still occurred in adult patients. Even though these changes were frequent, potential implications for the patient are unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single-tooth restorations with crown-to-implant ratio in between 0.9 and 2.2 may be considered a viable treatment option. Multiunit reconstructions with cantilevers are a viable treatment option in fully and partially edentulous patients. Clinicians and patients should be aware, however, that complications are frequent and primarily related to resin material used for veneering. There is some evidence that tilting an implant does affect stability of the implant and the surrounding bone. Treatment options to tilted implants should carefully be considered, as the effect on soft tissues and on prosthesis behavior is poorly reported for tilted implants. Positional changes in the dentition in relation to implant-supported restorations occur frequently. The patient should be informed about the possible need for a treatment related to these changes in the long term.

Zygomatic Implants for the Management of Severe Alveolar Atrophy in the Partial or Completely Edentulous Maxilla.

Treatment of severely resorbed partially or completely edentulous maxillae can include the utilization of the zygomatic process for immediate implant fixation and stabilization with immediate function. This approach may alleviate the need for significant grafting to enable implant placement in the posterior maxilla and allow implants to be placed into denser, more stable bone. Zygomatic implants, which have been used clinically for the past 20 years in the treatment of the severely resorbed maxilla, allow implant placement to support fixed prosthetics. Their usage can potentially shorten treatment time and reduce costs, as the need to wait for osseous graft maturation is eliminated. Guided surgical approaches are being utilized to maximize placement of the prosthetic platform of these implants.

Implant Treatment after Sagittal Splitting Ramus Osteotomy and Alveolar Ridge Augmentation in Patient with Mandibular Prognathism and Multiple Missing Maxillary Teeth.

An abnormal maxillomandibular ridge relationship frequently hinders oral implant treatment in patients with jaw deformities. Here, we describe a patient who was experiencing difficulty using dentures due to multiple maxillary tooth loss and mandibular prognathism. Treatment comprising sagittal splitting ramus osteotomy and alveolar ridge augmentation using bone grafts harvested from the mandibular ramus followed by implant treatment yielded good outcomes. The patient was a 47-year-old woman presenting with an unstable upper partial denture. Although prior prosthetic treatment for mandibular prognathism had resulted in normal overbite, she had since lost an increasing number of teeth due to advanced periodontal disease, impairing support for the denture. She was referred to the Department of Oral Implantology at the Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital in October 2008. Subsequent treatment comprised implant treatment following maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation and sagittal splitting ramus osteotomy to correct the maxillary-mandibular relationship. In January 2010, sagittal splitting ramus osteotomy and alveolar bone augmentation using a bone graft from the mandibular ramus were performed under general anesthesia. In July and August 2010, a total of 7 implants were placed in the maxilla and implant superstructure preparation started after 3 months. Taking both the patient's wishes and ease of maintenance into account, retrievable superstructures made of Auro Galvano Crown were fitted in April 2011. The jaw-to-jaw alveolar ridge relationship was improved by sagittal splitting ramus osteotomy, rendering subsequent treatment, from implant placement to superstructure preparation, feasible by conventional methods. The use of surplus bone generated during sagittal splitting ramus osteotomy for bone augmentation avoided the need to harvest bone from another area.

Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant-retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-36). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made and approved. RESULTS: Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetics of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and the surrounding mucosa. Implant neck design, restorative material, or use of a provisional restoration did not influence patients' ratings. Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis. Both immediate provisionalization and conventional loading receive positive patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients' satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.

Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from the patients' perspective: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed at answering the following PICO question: In patients receiving immediate (Type 1) implant placement, how does immediate compare to early or conventional loading in terms of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following search strategy development, the OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were search for the relevant literature. All levels of evidence including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series of at least five patients were considered for possible inclusion. An additional manual search was performed by screening the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews published up to May 2017. The intervention considered was the placement of immediate implant. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: The search yielded a list of 1,102 references, of which nine were included in this systematic review. The limited number of studies included and the heterogeneity of the data identified prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Three studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial, allowed the extraction of comparative data specific to the aim of the present systematic review. The remaining studies allowed only data extraction for one single treatment modality and were viewed as single cohort studies. Overall, irrespective of the PROMs chosen, patients' satisfaction was overall high with little difference between the two loading protocols. Moreover, studies indicated a positive impact on oral health-related quality of life following immediate implant placement and loading. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present systematic review, immediate implant placement and loading in single tooth edentulous space seems to be a well-accepted treatment modality from the patients' perspective and is worthy of consideration in clinical practice. However, the paucity of comparative data limits any definitive conclusions as to which loading protocol; immediate or early/conventional, should be given preference based on PROMs.

Comparing 4-mm dental implants to longer implants placed in augmented bones in the atrophic posterior mandibles: One-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Short implants have been proposed as an alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous areas. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of 4-mm implants vs longer implants in the atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles were rehabilitated with two to four 4-mm implants and 10 or 8-mm long implants in augmented bone using Guided Bone Regeneration procedure. One side of the mandibles was randomly allocated to vertical augmentation with mixed autogenous bone and allograft. Implants were placed in both sides of the mandible after 6 months, and loaded after another 2 months. Subsequently, implant and prosthesis failures, marginal bone levels changes, and any complication were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, one patient dropped out and no failures occurred. However, 4-mm implants loss of 0.30 ± 0.34 mm peri-implant marginal bone and long implants loss of 0.47 ± 0.54 mm marginal bone were observed after 1-year of follow-up. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (difference = -0.16 ± 0.68 mm; P = 0.46). Eight complications occurred in five augmented sites of the patients, and no complication was found to occur in the short implants sites. CONCLUSIONS: One-year after loading, 4-mm implants had similar outcomes as long implants in augmented bone. Therefore, short implants might be a feasible treatment in atrophic mandibles.