1,720,983 research outputs found
Optimal number of oral implants for fixed reconstructions: a review of the literature.
No full textBACKGROUND AND AIM
So far there is little evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCT) or systematic reviews on the preferred or best number of implants to be used for the support of a fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla or mandible, and no consensus has been reached. Therefore, we reviewed articles published in the past 30 years that reported on treatment outcomes for implant-supported fixed prostheses, including survival of implants and survival of prostheses after a minimum observation period of 1 year.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify eligible studies. Short and long-term clinical studies were included with prospective and retrospective study designs to see if relevant information could be obtained on the number of implants related to the prosthetic technique. Articles reporting on implant placement combined with advanced surgical techniques such as sinus floor elevation (SFE) or extensive grafting were excluded. Two reviewers extracted the data independently.
RESULTS
A primary search was broken down to 222 articles. Out of these, 29 studies comprising 26 datasets fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From all studies, the number of planned and placed implants was available. With two exceptions, no RCTs were found, and these two studies did not compare different numbers of implants per prosthesis. Eight studies were retrospective; all the others were prospective. Fourteen studies calculated cumulative survival rates for 5 and more years. From these data, the average survival rate was between 90% and 100%. The analysis of the selected articles revealed a clear tendency to plan 4 to 6 implants per prosthesis. For supporting a cross-arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla, the variation is slightly greater.
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of a dispersion of results, similar outcomes are reported with regard to survival and number of implants per jaw. Since the 1990s, it was proven that there is no need to install as many implants as possible in the available jawbone. The overwhelming majority of articles dealing with standard surgical procedures to rehabilitate edentulous jaws uses 4 to 6 implants
Tenascin-C and extracellular matrix protein 9 levels in cervicular fluid of teeth and implants. A preliminary study
No full textEducation for specialization in prosthodontics in Switzerland and the role of EPA.
No full textAdvertisement for any dental treatment was rare in Switzerland. Then the use of digital media became popular, particularly in the field of implant- and esthetic-dentistry. In parallel to the dental schools of public universities, private universities and companies built up centers for continuing education that issue specialists diplomas and M.Sc. degrees. Prosthodontics itself is characterized by many sub-disciplines that incorporated their own associations. These also offer graduate training curricula which diminish the significance of specialization in prosthodontics. Specialized prosthodontists do not have a financial benefit in Switzerland where dentistry is not supported by any insurance. In other European countries funding of prosthodontic treatment depends on their healthcare systems. There are four specialties in Dentistry recognized by the European Union (EU). Specialization in prosthodontics was introduced in Sweden already in 1982 and today it is declared in about 20 European countries, while for others no recognized program exists. Thus there are great variations with more recognized specialists in former east European countries. In Switzerland the prosthodontic specialization curriculum was developed and guided by the Swiss Society for Reconstructive Dentistry, and only in 2001 it became fully acknowledged by the Federal Department of Health. The four Swiss Universities offer the 3-year program under the supervision of the society, while the government remains the executive body. In 2003 EPA tried to set up guidelines and quality standards for an EPA recognized specialization. In spite of these attempts and the Bologna Reform in Europe, it appears that the quality standards and the level of education still may differ significantly among European countries
Are there differences in the changes in oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) depending on the type (rigidity) of prosthetic treatment?
No full textOBJECTIVE
This prospective pilot study investigated differences in changes in oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) depending on the prosthetic treatment type (rigidity).
METHOD AND MATERIALS
Sixty participants seeking prosthetic treatment were included. The following data were collected before (T1) and 4 weeks after completion of prosthetic treatment (T2): OHRQoL (OHIP-G14) and dental status, categorized in terms of rigidity of the denture as fixed dental prosthesis (FDP, maximal rigidity), removable partial denture prosthesis (RPD, medium rigidity), or complete dentures (CDs, minimal rigidity). After prosthetic treatment, there were three groups of 20 participants: group 1, change in dental status to less rigid; group 2, equally rigid; group 3, more rigid restorations. Data were evaluated using nonparametric statistical test methods and power analysis. The minimally important difference (MID) of two OHIP-G14 units was determined to be clinically relevant.
RESULTS
At T1, 20 participants had FDP, 18 RPD, and 22 CD; at T2, 10 had FDP, 37 RPD, and 13 CD. Overall, average OHIP-G14 values improved clinically relevantly and statistically significantly (P < .001) with treatment. OHRQoL improved more in group 3, with a median of 8 (IQR 14.75; P = .002), than in group 2, with 2.5 (IQR 9.5; P = .033), or group 1, with 4.5 (IQR 16.5; P = .116). Applying MID, all groups improved clinically significantly. Compared to groups 1 and 2, group 3 improved clinically more significantly.
CONCLUSION
OHRQoL improved with prosthetic treatment. A patient-customized treatment regime seems as important as prosthesis type (rigidity)
Monolithic zirconia reconstructions supported by teeth and implants: 1- to 3-year results of a case series.
No full textOBJECTIVE
Today, only scarce information is available on monolithic zirconia reconstructions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of monolithic zirconia for tooth- and implant-borne reconstructions.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
Monolithic zirconia single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by implants or teeth were included in this study. Implant placement and prosthetic treatment were done in the same clinical setting. One technician performed all laboratory work using the same CAD/CAM workflow (DentalDesigner, Ceramill Motion 2, Amann Girrbach). The endpoints were technical outcome, color match, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and biologic aspects. The modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and periodontal parameters were applied for the clinical evaluation by two independent examiners. Descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparisons.
RESULTS
Forty patients (17 men, 23 women, mean age 59.1 ± 14.7 years) with 109 reconstructions (74 SCs, 35 FDPs) supported by 38 implants and 71 teeth were assessed, resulting in a total of 238 monolithic zirconia units (including 62 pontics and 18 cantilevers). Median follow-up time was 23.8 months (12 to 36 months). No technical failures were observed. The total prosthesis survival rate was 99.6% (teeth, 100%; implants, 98.4%) due to the loss of one implant. The periodontal/peri-implant parameters stand for healthy tissue, and caries was not detected. The records obtained by the USPHS revealed good clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION
These short-term results indicate that monolithic zirconia reconstructions for teeth and implants may be a satisfactory treatment option, particularly in the posterior region
Verbreiterung der keratinisierten periimplantären Mukosa zum Zeitpunkt der Implantatwiedereröffnung: Ein Fallbericht.
No full textA tightly attached keratinized mucosa around endosseous dental implants is believed to be protective against peri-implant bone loss. Tension caused by buccal frena and mobile non keratinized mucosa is to avoid. This case report documents the optimization of peri-implant mucosal conditions in the upper and lower jaw. At the time of second stage surgery (re-entry) at submucosally osseointegrated dental implants an enlargement of keratinized mucosa and a thickening of soft tissue was obtained administrating a vestibuloplasty combined by a free gingival graft or a vestibuloplasty combined by an apically moved flap.Eine unverschieblich angelagerte möglichst keratinisierte Mukosa im Bereich der Implantatdurchtrittsstelle soll vor Knochenverlust schützen. Zug durch Wangenbänder und bewegliche Schleimhaut ist zu vermeiden. Dieser Fallbericht dokumentiert die Optimierung der periimplantären Schleimhautverhältnisse um Implantate im Oberund Unterkiefer. Zum Zeitpunkt der Wiedereröffnung der submukosal eingeheilten Implantate
wurde mittels einer Vestibulumplastik kombiniert mit einem freien Schleimhauttransplantat sowie mittels einer Vestibulumplastik kombiniert mit einem apikalen Verschiebelappen eine Verbreiterung der keratinisierten Mukosa und Verdickung des Weichgewebes erzielt
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Is a grooved collar implant design superior to a machined design regarding bone level alteration? An observational pilot study.
No full textOBJECTIVE
This retrospective observational pilot study examined differences in peri-implant bone level changes (ΔIBL) between two similar implant types differing only in the surface texture of the neck. The hypothesis tested was that ΔIBL would be greater with machined-neck implants than with groovedneck implants.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
40 patients were enrolled; n = 20 implants with machined (group 1) and n = 20 implants with a rough, grooved neck (group 2), all placed in the posterior mandible. Radiographs were obtained after loading (at 3 to 9 months) and at 12 to 18 months after implant insertion. Case number calculation with respect to ΔIBL was conducted. Groups were compared using a Brunner-Langer model, the Mann-Whitney test, the Wilcoxon signed rank test, and linear model analysis.
RESULTS
After the 12- to 18-month observation period, mean ΔIBL was -1.11 ± 0.92 mm in group 1 and -1.25 ± 1.23 mm in group 2. ΔIBL depended significantly on time (P < .001), but not on group. In both groups, mean marginal ΔIBL was significantly less than -1.5 mm. Only insertion depth had a significant influence on the amount of periimplant bone loss (P = .013). Case number estimate testing for a difference between group 1 and 2 with a power of 90% revealed a sample size per group of 1,032 subjects.
CONCLUSION
ΔIBL values indicated that both implant designs fulfilled implant success criteria, and the modification of implant neck texture had no significant influence on ΔIBL
Immediate implant placement in mandible and prosthetic rehabilitation by means of all-zirconium oxide restorations: case report of a woman with a history of periodontitis.
No full textOwing to its single surgical intervention, immediate implant placement has the advantage of shortening treatment time, and thus positively affects patient morbidity. According to the bone resorption pattern after tooth extraction, bone loss should be anticipated if immediate implant placement is considered. The present case report aims to present a possible treatment option and to demonstrate that a partially edentulous arch may be rehabilitated esthetically by immediate implant placement and by corresponding anticipatory measures
- …
