Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the 5-year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0 ), and at 1 (T1 ), 12 (T12 ) and 60 (T60 ) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre-operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score-White Aesthetic Score), soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was -0.6 (-1.1 to -0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (-0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This 5-year follow-up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri-implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

Single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants with sinus floor augmentation or by 6-mm long implants: A 10-year randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) surgery or by 6-mm long implants during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were randomly allocated to receive one 11-mm long implant in combination MFSA or to receive one 6-mm long implant without any grafting. Twenty-one implants in 20 patients were placed in the 6-mm group and 20 implants in 18 patients were placed in the 11-mm group. Both groups were followed by clinical and radiographic examinations up to 10 years. Patients' satisfaction was also scored before treatment. RESULTS: Two patients died and eight patients moved during the follow-up. Two patients lost an implant in the 6-mm group and one implant was lost in the 11-mm group (implant survival 89.5% and 90.9%, respectively). From loading to 10 years' follow-up, mean ± SE marginal bone loss in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 0.18 ± 0.10 mm and 0.26 ± 0.12 mm, respectively, without a significant difference between the groups at 10 years (p = .650). In both groups, indices scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva and bleeding were low as well as mean pocket probing depth. Patients' satisfaction at 10 years was high in both groups; mean overall satisfaction in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 9.6 ± 0.6 and 9.2 ± 0.8, respectively (p = .168). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of 6-mm implants or 11-mm implants combined MFSA are equally successful during a 10-year follow-up period when applied for supporting a single restoration.

Mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional implant-supported single-tooth restorations: A laboratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional restorations on titanium temporary abutments, with and without thermo-mechanical ageing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants with a conical connection were divided into four groups (n = 24) and restored with temporary shell or laboratory-fabricated central or lateral incisor PMMA restorations that were relined or bonded on titanium temporary abutments. The diameter of the central and lateral incisor groups' implants was regular (ϕ 4.3 mm) or narrow (ϕ 3.5 mm), respectively. Half of each group's specimens were subjected to ageing, simultaneous thermocycling (5-55°C) and chewing simulation (120,000 cycles, 50 N, 1.7 Hz) resulting in eight groups in total (n = 12). The aged specimens were evaluated with optical microscopy, and survival and complication rates were determined according to modified USPHS criteria. The non-aged specimens and those that had survived ageing were loaded until failure, whereupon bending moments were calculated. RESULTS: Survival rates after ageing were 100% for all groups. Apart from wear facets (ϕ 2-3 mm) on the palatal restoration surface, no complications were observed. The mean fracture load and bending moments ranged between 597.6-847.1 N and 433.3-550.6 Ncm, respectively, with no significant differences between the eight groups (p = .25; p = .20). CONCLUSIONS: As patient-specific temporary shell central and lateral incisor provisional implant-supported restorations are mechanically stable enough to withstand clinical bite forces, even after thermo-mechanical ageing, they may serve as an alternative to laboratory-fabricated provisional restorations.

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10-year randomized controlled trial results.

AIM: To evaluate bar-supported maxillary implant overdenture treatment when supported by either four or six implants after 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous subjects with maxillary denture complaints and ample bone volume to facilitate implants in the anterior region of the maxilla were planned for implant overdenture treatment, randomized to receive either four implants (n = 25) or six implants (n = 25) and subsequently evaluated after 10 years of function. Outcome variables included peri-implant bone-level changes, implant and overdenture survival, complications, presence of plaque, calculus and bleeding, degree of peri-implant inflammation, probing depth and patient satisfaction. Differences between the groups and between evaluation periods were tested with a Student's t-test. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with totally 72 implants were lost to follow-up. Two patients from the six-implant group experienced implant loss (four implants), resulting in 96.1% implant survival in this group versus 100% survival in the four-implant group. Clinical, radiographical and patient-reported outcome measures did not differ statistically significant between the two groups. Patients from both groups were generally quite satisfied with the result after 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Similar and favourable outcomes are seen in bar-supported maxillary overdentures on either four or six anteriorly placed implants after a 10-year evaluation period.

Maxillary bar overdentures on four or six posterior implants: 10-year results from a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes when providing maxillary overdentures on four and six splinted implants placed in the posterior region during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six edentulous participants with functional maxillary denture complaints and insufficient bone volume to allow implant placement were scheduled for a bone augmentation procedure. After healing, participants were randomized to receive either four or six implants in the posterior maxilla. After 3 months of osseointegration, a bar overdenture was constructed. Implant survival, overdenture survival, clinical scores, peri-implant bone height changes, and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-six participants completed the 10-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100% in the 4-implant group and 96.7% in the 6-implant group. Seven new overdentures were made in the 4-implant group and 12 new overdentures were made in the 6-implant group due to excessive wear of the denture base and teeth. Clinical parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Mean marginal bone loss compared to baseline was 0.41 ± 0.37 mm in the 4-implant group and 0.70 ± 1.07 mm in the 6-implant group. Overall, patient satisfaction improved significantly, but did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: From this 10-year follow-up trial, it was concluded that bar maxillary overdentures on four or six implants in the posterior region of an augmented maxilla resulted in a comparable treatment outcome with high implant survival, limited loss of peri-implant marginal bone, and high patients' satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR9729).

Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with implant surface cleansing using saline during the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a resective surgical intervention, implant surfaces were randomly treated with either air polishing (test group n = 26 patients/53 implants) or saline-soaked cotton gauzes (control group n = 31 patients/ 40 implants). Primary outcome was change in mean bleeding on probing (BoP) from baseline to 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in mean suppuration on probing (SoP), plaque score (Plq), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal full-mouth scores (PFMS), and levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens. Clinical and radiographical parameters were analyzed using multilevel regression analyses. Microbiological outcomes were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: No differences between the test and control group were found for BoP over 12 months of follow-up, nor for the secondary parameters Plq, PPD, and MBL. Between both groups, a significant difference was found for the levels of SoP (p = 0.035). No significant effect on microbiological levels was found. A total number of 6 implants were lost in the test group and 10 in the control group. At 1-year follow-up, a successful treatment outcome (PPD<5 mm, max 1 out of 6 sites BoP, no suppuration and no progressive bone loss >0.5 mm) was achieved for a total of 18 implants (19.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing as implant surface cleansing method was not more effective than saline during resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. Both therapies resulted in low treatment success. TRIAL REGISTRY: https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.

Immediate placement of single implants with or without immediate provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic region: A 5-year comparative study.

AIM: To compare marginal bone level changes around immediately placed and immediately provisionalized implants with immediately placed and delayed provisionalized implants in the aesthetic region after five years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were randomly assigned immediate implant placement with immediate (Group A: n = 20) or delayed (Group B: n = 20) provisionalization. Definitive crown placement occurred three months after provisionalization. The primary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level. In addition, survival rates, buccal bone thickness, soft peri-implant tissues, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: After 5 years, the mean mesial and distal marginal bone level changes were 0.71 ± 0.68 mm and 0.71 ± 0.71 mm, respectively, in group A and 0.49 ± 0.52 mm and 0.54 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, in group B; the difference between the groups was not significant (p = .305 and p = .477, respectively). Implant and restoration survivals were 100%. No clinically relevant differences in buccal bone thickness or in mid-facial peri-implant mucosal level, aesthetic and patient outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes following immediate implant placement and provisionalization were comparable with immediate implant placement and delayed provisionalization. (www.isrctn.com: ISRCTN57251089 and www.trialregister.nl: NL8255).

Biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid of healthy implants, untreated and non-surgically treated implants with peri-implantitis.

AIM: To compare biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) of healthy implants with levels in PICF of implants with peri-implantitis (before and after non-surgical treatment). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples were taken from 20 healthy implants (n = 17 patients) and from 20 implants with peri-implantitis (n = 19 patients) before and 3 months after non-surgical treatment using the Airflow Master Piezon® (EMS). A Luminex™ assay was used to evaluate pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-1ß, TNF-α, IL-6 and G-CSF, collagen degradation enzyme MMP-8, chemokines MCP-1 & MIP-1α/CCL3, bone markers OPG and sRANKL and interferon-γ. Clinical and radiographical characteristics were assessed. A Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysed between- and within-group differences. RESULTS: IL-1ß and MMP-8 levels were found significantly elevated in implants with peri-implantitis (p = .007; p = <.001, respectively). No difference in levels of TNF-α, IL-6, MCP-1 and MIP-1α/CCL3, OPG and G-CSF between healthy and diseased implants was found. Levels of sRANKL and INF-γ were under the level of detection. None of the biomarker levels improved after non-surgical therapy, and levels of IL-1ß and MMP-8 remained high. CONCLUSION: Implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis have higher levels of IL-1ß and MMP-8 in PICF compared to healthy implants. Non-surgical therapy did not influence the inflammatory immune response.

Linear and profilometric changes of the mucosa following soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation, in terms of change in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, at implants sites in the zone of the aesthetic priority. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (last search on 1 June 2020). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of different materials and timing of grafting in patients undergoing soft tissue augmentation at implant sites in the aesthetic zone with a follow-up of ≥1 year after implant placement. Outcome measures assessed included changes in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, implant survival, peri-implant health and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Eighteen out of 2,185 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in vertical mid-buccal soft tissue change (0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.13-0.56, p = .002) and mid-buccal mucosa thickness (0.66 mm, 95% CI: 0.35-0.97, p < .001) following immediate implant placement in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. Mean difference in mid-buccal mucosa level following delayed implant placement (0.17 mm, 95% CI: 0.01-0.34, p = .042) was also in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. With regard to mucosa thickness, the use of a graft was not in favour compared with no graft following delayed implant placement (0.22 mm, 95% CI: -0.04-0.47, p = .095). Observed changes remained stable in the medium term. CONCLUSION: Soft tissue augmentation in the zone of the aesthetic priority results in less recession and a thicker mid-buccal mucosa following immediate implant placement and less recession in mid-buccal mucosa following delayed implant placement compared with no graft.

Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm or 11-mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients with adequate bone height for 11-mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6-mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11-mm group (control group with standard-length implants). Two or three implants of the same length were placed in each patient and after 6 weeks loaded with a splinted provisional restoration. This was followed by definitive splinted restoration 6 months after implant placement. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including the occurrence of complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were enrolled to receive 6-mm implants (n = 108) and 46 patients to receive 11-mm implants (n = 101). Three implants (two of 6 mm and one of 11 mm in length) were lost before loading and one 6-mm implant after 15 months of function, and one 11-mm implant was lost during the first year of function. The 5-year survival rates were 96.0% and 98.9% in the 6-mm and 11-mm group, respectively. The mean marginal bone level changes 5 years post-loading were 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6-mm group and -0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11-mm group (p = .7670). Clinical parameters, including plaque, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth were not significantly different between the groups, and also technical complications were low. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6-mm short and 11-mm standard-length implants were not different during a 5-year evaluation period.

Erythritol airpolishing in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty patients (n = 139 implants) with peri-implantitis (probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥5 mm, marginal bone loss (MBL) ≥2 mm as compared to bone level at implant placement, bleeding, and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP)) were randomly allocated to air polishing or ultrasonic treatment. The primary outcome was mean BoP (%) at 3 months after therapy (T3). Secondary outcomes were mean SoP (%), plaque score (Plq) (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), full mouth periodontal scores (FMPS) (%), levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens, and treatment pain/discomfort (Visual Analog Scale, VAS). Patients who were considered successful at T3 were additionally assessed at 6, 9, and 12 months. Differences between both groups were analyzed using multilevel statistics. RESULTS: Three months after therapy, no significant difference in mean BoP (%) between the air polishing and ultrasonic therapy was found (crude analysis ß (95% CI) -0.037 (-0.147; 0.073), p = .380). Neither secondary outcomes SoP (%), Plq (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), FMPS (%), and periodontal pathogens showed significant differences. Treatment pain/discomfort was low in both groups (VAS score airpolishing group 2.1 (±1.9), ultrasonic 2.6 (±1.9); p = .222). All successfully treated patients at T3 (18.4%) were still considered successful at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing seems as effective as piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. However, neither of the proposed therapies effectively resolved peri-implantitis. Hence, the majority of patients required further surgical treatment.

Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To report assessments of four systematic reviews (SRs) on (i) clinical outcomes of all-ceramic implant-supported crowns (iSCs), (ii) production time, effectiveness, and costs of computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM), (iii) computer-assisted implant planning and surgery (CAIPS) time and costs, and (iv) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An author group consisting of experienced clinicians and content experts discussed and evaluated the SRs and formulated consensus on the main findings, statements, clinical recommendations, and need for future research. RESULTS: All four SRs were conducted and reported according to PRISMA and detailed comprehensive search strategies in at least three bibliometric databases and hand searching. The search strategies were deemed reproducible. Variation was noted regarding language restrictions and inclusion of grey literature, but the search comprehensiveness appeared persuasive. The SRs included bias risk assessments of the primary studies, and their study methodology impacted the interpretations of the extracted data. CONCLUSIONS: (i) There is limited evidence (49 NRCT) showing that veneered and monolithic all-ceramic iSCs have excellent outcomes observed up to 3 years. (ii) There is no evidence evaluating production time and effectiveness comparing subtractive and additive CAM of implant models, abutments and crowns. (iii) There is limited evidence (4 RCT) that CAIPS involves more time and costs when considering the entire workflow and for diagnostics, manufacturing, and insertion of the restoration. Time seems to be the decisive factor for higher costs. (iv) Patients' comfort increases when optical compared to conventional impressions are used for fabricating iSCs and short-span FPDs (2 RCT, 5 NRCT).

Performance of bone-level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5-year prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, and satisfaction of patients treated with single implant restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region 5 years after final restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients (29 male/31 female, mean age 37 years) with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla (39 central incisors/10 lateral incisors/5 cuspids/6 first premolars) received a bone-level implant with conical connection. In 29 patients, a bone augmentation procedure was necessary before implant placement (autogenous bone grafts mixed with spongiosa granules). All implants (12 with 3.3 mm diameter/ 48 with 4.1 mm diameter) were loaded after 3 months of submerged healing. The restoration consisted of an individually designed full-zirconia abutment veneered with porcelain. Follow-up with clinical and radiographic assessment was conducted until 60 months after the final restoration. Aesthetic outcome of the restoration was determined with the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). Patient satisfaction was assessed with a VAS scale and satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100%, restoration survival 98%. Mean bone-level change was -0.13 ± 0.66 mm with a median (IQR) pocket probing depth of 2.75 [2.25; 3.25]. The mean PES and WES scores were 6.6 ± 1.7 and 7.8 ± 1.5, respectively. Patient satisfaction was high (92.1 ± 7.8 on 100 mm VAS scale). There were no differences between patients with or without a bone augmentation procedure. CONCLUSION: Bone-level implants with a conical connection are a reliable treatment option in single-tooth replacements in the maxillary aesthetic zone.

Non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment using a pocket irrigator device; clinical, microbiological, radiographical and patient-centred outcomes-A pilot study.

AIM: The aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the effect of a pocket irrigator/evacuator device (IED) in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total 24 patients having 38 implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included in this study. Peri-implant pockets were irrigated six times in three consecutive weeks. The primary outcome was bleeding on probing (BoP). Secondary outcome parameters included plaque index (Pl), suppuration on probing (SoP), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), presence and numbers of periodontal pathogens. Parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 months after the last treatment. Treatment pain perception was scored using the visual analog scale (VAS) after the first and last treatment. RESULTS: At 3 months, IED treatment revealed significant reduction of peri-implant BoP (71% [±20] vs 57% [±28] [P = .014]) and peri-implant plaque scores (10 [±14] to 5 [±9] [P = .039] [T0 vs T3 respectively]). Significant reduction in mean peri-implant PPD from 4.92 mm (SD ± 1.28) to 4.66 mm (SD ± 1.35) (P = .041) was observed. In addition, a reduction in VAS pain score between the first and the last (6th) treatment was found (P = .039). No reduction in SoP (P = .088) was found. No changes in mean periodontal full mouth plaque, BOP, SOP and PPD levels, MBL and microbiological outcomes were found. CONCLUSION: Beneficial clinical effects in terms of BoP, PPD and PI were found at 3 months after IED treatment. However, the IED does not seem to effectively treat peri-implantitis in terms of disease resolution.

Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the long-term effectiveness (≥5 years) of maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures applying the lateral window technique and to determine possible differences in outcome between simultaneous and delayed implant placement, partially and fully edentulous patients and grafting procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE (1950-May 2018), EMBASE (1966-May 2018) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1800-May 2018) were searched. Inclusion criteria were prospective studies with follow-up ≥5 years and a residual bone height ≤6 mm. Outcome measures included implant loss, peri-implant bone level change, suprastructure survival, patient-reported outcome measures and overall complications. Data were pooled and analysed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Out of 2,873 selected articles, 11 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted annual implant loss of 0.43% (95% CI: 0.37%-0.49%). Meta-regression analysis did not reveal significant differences in implant loss neither between edentulous and dentate patients nor implants placed simultaneously with or delayed after MSFA, nor implants placed in MSFA using solely autologous bone or bone substitutes. The results of the other outcome measures were favourable, and overall complications were low. CONCLUSION: MSFA is a reliable procedure in the partially and fully edentulous maxilla for support of dental implants.

Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.

Four or six implants in the maxillary posterior region to support an overdenture: 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes when providing maxillary overdentures on four bar- and six bar-connected implants placed in the posterior region during a 5-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six fully edentulous patients with functional maxillary denture complaints and insufficient bone volume to allow implant placement were scheduled for a maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure with bone from the anterior iliac crest and randomized to receive either four or six implants in the posterior maxilla and four implants in the mandible. After 3 months of osseointegration, a bar-supported overdenture was constructed. Maxillary implant survival, overdenture survival, clinical scores, peri-implant bone height changes and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100% in the four-implant group and 99.5% in the six-implant group. No new overdentures had to be made in the four-implant group, and three new overdentures were made in the six-implant group due to excessive wear of the denture base and teeth (90.9% overdenture survival). Clinical parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Mean marginal bone loss compared to baseline was 0.58 ± 0.51 mm in the four-implant group and 0.60 ± 0.58 mm in the six-implant group, respectively. Overall, patient satisfaction improved significantly, but did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Following a bilateral maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure, a bar-supported overdenture on four implants in the posterior maxillary region is not inferior to an overdenture supported by six implants after a 5-year evaluation period in patients with functional maxillary denture complaints and marked posterior resorption (Clinical trial registration number: NTR2969).

Effect of connective tissue grafting on peri-implant tissue in single immediate implant sites: A RCT.

AIM: To assess the effect of connective tissue grafting on the mid-buccal mucosal level (MBML) of immediately placed and provisionalized single implants in the maxillofacial aesthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a failing tooth were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. During implant placement, patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). Follow-up visits were at one (T1 ) and twelve months (T12 ) after final crown placement. The primary outcome measure was any change in MBML compared to the pre-operative situation. In addition, gingival biotype, aesthetics (using the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score), marginal bone level, soft tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: The mean MBML change at T12 was -0.5 ± 1.1 mm in the control group and 0.1 ± 0.8 mm in the test group (p = .03). No significant differences regarding other outcome variables were observed, neither was gingival biotype associated with a gain or loss in MBML. CONCLUSIONS: This one-year study shows that connective tissue grafting in single, immediately placed and provisionalized implants leads to less recession of the peri-implant soft tissue at the mid-buccal aspect, irrespective of the gingival biotype (www.trialregister.nl: TC3815).

Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: High crown-to-implant ratios may lead to complications due to unfavorable occlusal forces, including nonaxial forces, on the bone surrounding the neck of the implant and within the connection of the crown and implant itself. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on the influence of crown-to-implant ratio of single-tooth, nonsplinted, implants on biological and technical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE (1950-January 2018), EMBASE (1966-January 2018), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database (1800-January 2018) were searched to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: crown-to-implant ratio of single-tooth, nonsplinted, implant-supported restorations in the posterior maxilla or mandible and follow-up of at least 1 year. Main outcome measures were as follows: implant survival rate, marginal bone level changes, biological complications, and technical complications. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles. A meta-analysis was carried out for implant survival rate and peri-implant bone changes. RESULTS: Of 154 primarily selected articles, eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Study groups presented a mean crown-to-implant ratio varying from 0.86 (with 10-mm implants) to 2.14 (with 6-mm implants). The meta-analysis showed an implant survival of more than 99% per year and mean peri-implant bone changes of <0.1 mm per year. Limited biological and technical complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Data reviewed in the current manuscript on crown-to-implant ratio, ranging from 0.86 to 2.14, of single-tooth, nonsplinted, implants did not demonstrate a high occurrence of biological or technical complications.