Immediate provisional restoration of screw-type implants in the posterior mandible: results after 5 years of clinical function

Prospective Pilot Study of Immediately Provisionalized Restorations of Trabecular Metal-Enhanced Titanium Dental Implants: A 5-Year Follow-Up Report

Porous tantalum trabecular metal biomaterial has a similar structure to trabecular bone, and was recently added to titanium dental implants as a surface enhancement. The purpose of this prospective pilot study was to describe 5-year survival results and crestal bone level changes around immediately-provisionalized Trabecular Metal Dental Implants. Eligible patients were adults in need of ≥1 implants in the posterior jaw. A non-occluding single acrylic provisional crown was in place for up to 14 days before final restoration. Clinical evaluations with radiographs were conducted at each follow-up visit (1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 to 5 years). The primary endpoint was implant survival, characterized using the Kaplan-Meier method. The secondary endpoint was changes in crestal bone level, evaluated using a paired t-test to compare mean crestal bone levels between the baseline, 6-month, and annual follow-up values. In total, 30 patients (37 implants) were treated. Mean patient age was 45.5 years, and 63% were female. There was one implant failure; cumulative survival at 5 years was 97.2%. After the initial bone loss of 0.40 mm in the first 6 months, there were no statistically significant changes in crestal bone level over time up to 5 years of follow-up.

Immediate Restoration of Single-Piece Zirconia Implants: A Prospective Case Series-Long-Term Results after 11 Years of Clinical Function

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective case series was to evaluate single-piece zirconia implants restored with lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns through a long-term follow-up.

METHODS

In this trial, 20 one-piece zirconia implants were placed in 20 patients. Implants were restored (i) immediately with lithium disilicate CAD/CAM provisionals, and (ii) permanently four months after surgery. Patients were followed for 11 years. Clinical parameters and radiological measurements of the zirconia implants were assessed. For the statistical analysis, paired t-test was applied.

RESULTS

Four implants were counted as implant failure due to the loss of implant stability, resulting in a Kaplan-Meier survival rate of 80% up to 11 years. The mean bleeding on probing values were 19.1% (SD ± 13.1) and 18.2% (SD ± 17.6) 96 and 11 years after implant placement, respectively. The plaque index revealed a significant decrease over time (p < 0.001) with a value between 25.9% (SD ± 5.7) and 12.6% (SD ± 10.0) at baseline and 11-years follow-up respectively. The marginal bone level revealed a significant decrease 4, 8, and 11 years after implant insertion (p = 0.001, p = 0.019, and p = 0.027, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediately loaded zirconia single-piece implants showed a suitable success rate in clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Patient's perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced.

AIM

What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient-reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies.

RESULTS

Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full-text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies.

CONCLUSION

a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant-supported single or short-span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full-arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.

Does the timing of implant placement and loading influence biological outcomes of implant-supported multiple-unit fixed dental prosthesis-A systematic review with meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of timing of implant placement and loading on implant survival and biological outcomes of multiple-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed by three independent reviewers for studies reporting on ≥10 patients with FPDs supported by ≥two implants over ≥3 years of follow-up. Data were analyzed on implant survival and biological complications as primary outcomes and biological events, including changes in peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL), probing depth, soft-tissue level, and health condition as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

7002 titles were identified, 360 full-texts were screened, and 14 studies were included. These comprised 6 randomized controlled studies (RCTs), 5 cohort studies, and 3 case series with identifiable implant placement and loading protocols in five of 09 possible combinations. All groups but one (IPIL) showed implant survival rates >90%. A meta-analysis based on 3 RCTs found no differences in survival rate between DPIL and DPDL (p = .227).

CONCLUSIONS

High survival rates for all studied implant placement and loading combinations were shown for FPDs over ≥3 years of follow-up. When a delayed implant placement protocol is applied, immediate or delayed loading demonstrated similar survival rates. The heterogeneity of the data did not allow to draw any further conclusions on the occurrence of biological complications related to timing of implant placement/loading.

A Systematic Review of Survival Rates of Osseointegrated Implants in Fully and Partially Edentulous Patients Following Immediate Loading

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the survival rates of immediately loaded implants after at least five years. Besides implant failure, the amount of marginal bone loss around implants and the complication type were assessed. Methods: The electronic search was undertaken on Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using key terms such as: “immediate loading”, “immediate function”, “immediate restoration”, “immediate temporization”, “dental implants”, “fully edentulous patients”, “partially edentulous patients”. The search terms were combined using the Boolean operators AND, OR. The last electronic search was performed on 15 February 2018. Two authors independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk-of bias. The main outcomes recorded for each study were: implant and prosthesis success and survival, marginal bone level change, incidence and type of complications. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate cumulative survival rates. Results: Thirty-four prospective studies with at least five-year follow-up, published between 2007 and 2017 were included. A total of 5349 immediately loaded implants in 1738 patients were analyzed. The mean follow-up was 72.4 months (median 60 months, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 64.53, 80.25 months, range 60 to 147 months). The mean weighted implant survival was 97.4% (median 98.15%, 95% CI: 96.29%, 98.54%, range 83.80% to 100%). Cumulative survival rate of implants placed in the mandible was significantly higher than for the maxilla (p < 0.01). No significant difference in failure rate was found among the types of prosthesis employed (p = 0.27). The mean peri-implant bone level change at the end of the follow-up in each study ranged from 0.3 to 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Immediate loading of implants appears to have long-term predictability and success rate under well-defined circumstances.

Immediate occlusal vs nonocclusal loading of implants: A randomized prospective clinical pilot study and patient centered outcome after 36 months

Background

Immediate provisionalization reduces chair time and improves patient comfort.

Purpose

To analyze immediate functional loading vs nonfunctional loading with restorations in the posterior mandible for marginal bone defects, implant success/survival, and patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

A randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to assess these parameters based on 20 adult patients who underwent implant surgery, followed by immediate delivery of screw‐retained or cemented single or splinted restorations in full occlusal contact or in infraocclusion (test and control group). A questionnaire with visual analog scales was used to assess patient satisfaction.

Results

Following 36‐month data were evaluable for 9 patients (21 implants) in the study group (immediate functional loading) and for 10 patients (31 implants) in the control group (immediate nonfunctional loading). One implant in the control group was lost, hence the overall implant survival and success rate was 98.2%. Marginal bone defects were consistent with previous studies and comparable in both groups. Periotest values did not significantly change from baseline and the 12‐month follow‐up (Friedmann test). Patient satisfaction was high and did not involve any significant intergroup differences (Mann‐Whitney U‐test).

Conclusions

Both types of immediate provisional restorations are viable in selected patients. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to establish immediate functional loading as a standard treatment for partially edentulous jaws.

Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants.

RESULTS

The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.

Posterior partially edentulous jaws, planning a rehabilitation with dental implants

AIM: To discuss important characteristics of the use of dental implants in posterior quadrants and the rehabilitation planning.

METHODS: An electronic search of English articles was conducted on MEDLINE (PubMed) from 1990 up to the period of March 2014. The key terms were dental implants and posterior jaws, dental implants/treatment planning and posterior maxilla, and dental implants/treatment planning and posterior mandible. No exclusion criteria were used for the initial search. Clinical trials, randomized and non randomized studies, classical and comparative studies, multicenter studies, in vitro and in vivo studies, case reports, longitudinal studies and reviews of the literature were included in this review.

RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-two articles met the inclusion criteria of treatment planning of dental implants in posterior jaw and were read in their entirety. The selected articles were categorized with respect to their context on space for restoration, anatomic considerations (bone quantity and density), radiographic techniques, implant selection (number, position, diameter and surface), tilted and pterygoid implants, short implants, occlusal considerations, and success rates of implants placed in the posterior region. The results derived from the review process were described under several different topic headings to give readers a clear overview of the literature. In general, it was observed that the use of dental implants in posterior region requires a careful treatment plan. It is important that the practitioner has knowledge about the theme to evaluate the treatment parameters.

CONCLUSION: The use of implants to restore the posterior arch presents many challenges and requires a detailed treatment planning.