Evaluation of Implant Success in Patients with Dental Aplasia

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

The atrophic maxilla often requires bone augmentation before implant placement to ensure long-term implant success. A previous prospective clinical trial examined the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) during maxillary augmentation. The short-term results showed no positive effect of PRP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the same patient collective of the previous study regarding the PRP long-term impact on the survival and success of dental implants. Fifty-three patients from the previous study diagnosed with maxillary atrophy and augmented with autologous bone grafts from the iliac crest and dental implants, were included in this study. Treatment was carried out on both sides in 34 patients with a split-mouth-design in which one randomly chosen side was treated additionally with PRP, the other side was the control-side. Nineteen patients were treated only on one side and were assigned to the PRP-or the control group randomly. Implant follow-up of the patients from the previous study was performed after an average time of 13 years. Implant success was evaluated using two different success criteria. Thitry-seven patients (25 women and 12 men) were investigated in this study. Seventeen patients (12 female, 5 male) were included in the PRP group, while 20 patients (13 female, 7 male) participated in the control group. A total of 210 implants were inserted. Of these, 102 implants (48.57%) were placed in the PRP group and 108 implants (51.42%) in the control group. Out of 102 investigated implants in the PRP group, 6 were removed (survival rate 94.1%). While two of the 108 implants in the control group were loss (survival rate 98.1%). In the PRP group, the cumulative probability of survival after 15.1 years was 94.1% and in the control group, was 98.1%, with no significant difference between the two groups. Higher significant difference for the control group was found in the cumulative success probability using Albrektson criteria (p = 0.05). Positive impact of PRP on long-term implant survival and success could not be found.

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Retrospective Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

: The long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of dental implants inserted in augmented bone treated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has not been well addressed in the literature yet. This study is based on a collection of patients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that did not report any short-term positive effects of PRP on bone healing after sinus lift surgery using autologous iliac crest bone graft. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term impact of PRP regarding clinical and radiological outcomes on the inserted implants in the previous RCT. For this evaluation, we considered the following variables: plaque index, probing depth, bleeding index, mobility grade, Periotest® values, and radiological bone loss. Out of 53 patients (n = 306 implants) included in the previous study we were able to reinvestigate 37 patients (n = 210 implants) in two centers (31 in Giessen, Germany and 6 in Erlangen, Germany). Clinical and radiographic parameters suggested overall healthy conditions of the peri-implant tissue. The PRP-group and the control group did not differ significantly in the majority of the parameters. The overall evaluation showed that result data of the PRP-group was inferior to the control group in 64 percent of the evaluated parameters. The present study cannot provide evidence of a positive effect of PRP on the long-term implant clinical and radiological outcomes. In fact, a tendency towards inferior long-term results in the PRP-group was detected without reaching a significant threshold. Further controlled trials need to be conducted to investigate this correlation.

Oral Rehabilitation of Hypodontia Patients Using an Endosseous Dental Implant: Functional and Aesthetic Results

Hypodontia often leads to limited bone availability of the alveolar ridges. Oral rehabilitation of severe hypodontia patients is challenging. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the functional and aesthetic results after dental implants in hypodontia patients, corroborated by Albrektsson implant success criteria. Over a period of 15 years (2000–2015), a total of 43 patients were diagnosed with hypodontia and 165 dental implants were inserted. Six patients who received 10 implants were lost in the follow-up. We examined 155 implants in 37 patients between December 2015 and May 2017. Besides family history, patients evaluated the general satisfaction, functionality, and aesthetics of the implants. Study subjects were between 17 and 44 years old (mean ± SD: 21.4 ± 5.6). Hypodontia patients were missing one to five teeth (n = 28), whereas patients diagnosed with oligodontia (≥6 missing teeth, n = 9). In this study, 24 patients (64.9%) with hypodontia had a positive family history; the remaining 13 patients had no family member with hypodontia. The final follow-up time ranged between 5 and 189 months after implant placement. Orthodontic treatment was performed in 32 patients (86%) before implant placement. Rehabilitation resulted in 62% of the cases being treated with 1–2 implants and 38% treated with 3–15 implants. However, out of 155 inserted dental implants, 18 implants failed to meet Albrektsson criteria, under which two implants were removed. Only autografts were used for bone augmentation with 97 implants. More than two-thirds of the patients showed high general satisfaction and masticatory function (69.4%) as well as phonetic ability (80.6%). The aesthetic outcome was rated as excellent by 17 patients (47.2%). The findings emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary treatment of hypodontia, leading to a satisfactory, functional, and long-term fixed prosthodontics using dental implants.