3-D tooth movement adjacent to single anterior implants and esthetic outcome. A 14- to 20-year follow-up study

Digital workflow for prosthetic management of malpositioned implant in an adolescent patient: A 20-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Dental implants placed in adolescent patients pose a challenge to restore and maintain an esthetic outcome over longer period of follow-up. Maxillomandibular changes throughout adulthood may lead to complications such as implant infraocclusion and interproximal contact loss. This case report describes an alternate prosthetic treatment strategy for maxillary single implant placed in an adolescent patient in the esthetic zone with inappropriate implant axis and screw hole placement.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

With temporary restorations, the gingiva and soft tissues were shaped to imitate the emerging profile of the contralateral side. A zirconia screw-retained abutment was customized as a copy-mirror from the contralateral prepared tooth to mimic the exact shape and to avoid labiolingual over contour by computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM). The porcelain laminate veneer was bonded to the zirconia abutment. Porcelain adhesive approach was used instead of traditional principles of retention and resistance form of the abutment.

CONCLUSIONS

A functional and esthetic outcome was achieved and maintained, while a minimally invasive procedure was implemented to use the malplaced implant instead of explanting it.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The present report illustrates the prosthetic management of a malpositioned dental implant placed 20 years ago, utilizing a minimally invasive digital protocol.

Can the Immediate Implantation With Immediate Loading Achieve an Acceptable Esthetic Outcome? A Prospective Observational Clinical Study

The trending protocol in implantology aims at integrating the esthetic on par with function while reducing discomfort and treatment time with optimal results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pink esthetic score in sites treated by graftless instant implantation that was boosted by instant provisionalization with a 2 to 3 mm jumping distance. Thirty-five implants were inserted in the extraction sockets of teeth of 29 healthy qualified patients (22 females and 7 males) with an age range of 23 to 60 years [mean±SD age 41.11±9.9 y). Preoperative assessment was complemented clinically and radiographically for each patient. The used system was Medentika dental implant (Germany). Osstell implant stability quotient was used to measure implant stability at the time of surgery (baseline) and at 16 weeks. Four implants in 3 patients failed. The implant survival rate was 88.6%. The protocol of this study produced a significant decrease in the jumping distance which is 2 to 3 mm at cone-beam computed tomography evaluation with satisfactory esthetic outcomes clinically. Further comparative studies with long-term and larger samples are needed to confirm the conclusion of this study.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2021 dental literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to coverage of this broad topical area. Specific subject areas addressed, in order of the appearance in this report, include COVID-19 and the dental profession (new); prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence daily dental treatment decisions with an emphasis on future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published daily, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. Rather, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater details on their own. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in negotiating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the patients and dental problems they encounter.

Implant treatment after traumatic tooth loss: A systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Treatment after traumatic tooth loss is challenging and is currently guided by expert opinion and the individual patient situation. The aim of this study was to provide an overview on the outcome of dental implant treatment in the anterior maxilla after traumatic tooth loss, based on a systematic review of the existing evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Cochran Library and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines based on a structured research question (PICO). All clinical studies of five patients or more with follow-up of at least 1 year after implant loading were included. Patients were at least 18 years of age. Cohen's Kappa-coefficient was calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the quality of the included studies. Descriptive statistical methods were applied.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and ninety-nine articles were identified through the systematic search. Finally, six articles were eligible for inclusion. The studies comprised prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case series. From these, 96 patients with 120 implants were included. The age ranged from 18 to 59 years. The survival rates of implants and superstructures were 97% and 95%, respectively, after a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Mean marginal bone resorption was 0.56 mm (range 0.21-1.30 mm). Complication rates were 7% and 11% on implant and superstructure level, respectively. Patient-reported outcome measures and objective evaluations showed a high level of satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome. Bone augmentation was performed in 60 implant sites. Three patients underwent pre-surgical orthodontic treatment. The maxillary central incisor was the most frequently replaced tooth (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review revealed a low level of evidence on the outcome of dental implant treatment after traumatic tooth loss. Systematic reporting of treatment outcomes of tooth replacements after dental trauma is highly encouraged to further guide dentists for the benefit of these challenging patients.