Patient satisfaction and survival of maxillary overdentures supported by four or six splinted implants: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Influence of titanium and titanium-zirconium alloy as implant materials on implant stability of maxillary implant retained overdenture: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term success of implant restoration depends on many factors one of them is the sufficient implant stability which is lowered in compromised bone density sites such as the maxilla as it is categorized as type III & IV bone, so searching for a new innovation and updates in implant material and features is very mandatory. So, the aim of this study was to compare between two implant materials (roxolid and traditional titanium) on the primary and secondary stability of implant retained maxillary overdenture.

METHODS

Eighteen completely edentulous patients were selected. All patients received maxillary implant-retained overdentures and lower complete dentures; patients were divided equally into two groups according to the type of implant materials. Group A received a total number of 36 implants made of roxolid material and Group B received a total number of 36 implants made of traditional titanium alloys. Implant stability was assessed using ostell device, the primary implant stability was measured at the day of implant installation however, secondary implant stability was measured after six weeks of implant placement. Paired t-test was used to compare between primary and secondary stability in the same group and an independent t-test was used to compare between the two groups with a significant level < 0.05.

RESULTS

Independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the two groups with p -value = 0.0141 regarding primary stability and p-value < 0.001 regarding secondary stability, as roxolid implant group was statistically higher stability than titanium group in both. Paired t- test showed a statistically significant difference in roxolid implant group with p-value = 0.0122 however, there was non-statistically significant difference in titanium group with p-value = 0.636. Mann Whitney test showed a significant difference between the two groups regarding amount of change in stability with p value = 0.191. roxolid implant group showed a higher amount of change in stability than the titanium implant group.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of this study, it could be concluded that: Roxolid implants showed promising results regarding primary and secondary stability compared to conventional Titanium implants and can be a better alternative in implant retained maxillary overdentures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively NCT06334770 at 26-3-2024.

Full Arch Implant-Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A 7-Year Follow-Up Prospective Single Cohort Study

Aim: The rising average age increases edentulous cases, demanding more implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, with cardiovascular diseases being significant factors. This study compared healthy patients (CG = Control Group) and those with cardiovascular disease (TG = Test Group) for implant survival, Marginal Bone Loss (MBL), peri-implant tissue level parameters as Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR), Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding on Probing (BoP) Peri-implant Probing Depth (PPD), and surgical complications. Smoking impact on both groups and medication influence in the TG were secondary outcomes. Patients underwent full-arch implant prosthetic rehabilitation. Methods: Implant survival rate, MBL, and surgical complications were recorded during the monitoring period (7 years), while peri-implant parameters were assessed at the end of the observational time. A total of 26 and 28 CG and TG patients were recruited, respectively. Results: A total of 128 implants were placed in CG, while 142 in the TG. Implant survival and MBL showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, peri-implant parameters were more unfavorable in TG. The only significant surgical complication was higher bleeding rates in the TG (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Cardiovascular patients showed similar implant survival and MBL but had adverse peri-implant parameters and increased bleeding rates. Higher smoking levels may relate to unfavorable implant outcomes. Further investigation is needed on drug impact with larger samples.

Use of Individually Designed CAD/CAM Suprastructures for Dental Reconstruction in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate

This patient series reports the outcomes of CAD/CAM prosthetic reconstructions in patients with cleft lip and palate (n = 9, aged 27 to 76) who have experienced significant failure with conventional restorative and fixed prosthodontic treatments. The objective of the protocol is to establish a functional and patient-friendly prosthetic structure for individuals with unilateral/bilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP/BCLP) while minimising the requirement for specialised follow-up care in the cleft unit. The study data were obtained from a retrospective cohort at Helsinki University Hospital. Prosthetic reconstructions were performed using CAD/CAM bar structures by the Atlantis 2in1 system or Createch removable telescope structures, supported by four to eight maxillary dental implants. Out of the nine patients, seven experienced no complications. One prosthesis fracture occurred after 16 months due to a design error in the original framework, and one patient experienced failure of osseointegration in a dental fixture (specifically, one fixture out of the eight maxillary implants in this patient). In total, 56 implants were successfully placed. The maxillary dentition of elderly patients with cleft lip and palate often poses challenges due to periodontal and reconstructive issues. An implant-supported CAD/CAM bar with a removable telescope suprastructure offers an easily maintained and functional solution for dental rehabilitation.

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).

Impact of Platform Switched Implants on Marginal Bone Level in Mandibular Overdentures: A Six-Year Follow-Up Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the platform-switched implant on marginal bone loss (MBL) and the probing pocket depth (PPD) in patients wearing mandibular overdenture.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This longitudinal study included 40 completely edentulous patients aged 51-64 years. All patients received complete dentures and were distributed into two groups randomly; 20 patients each. The first group GI received two platform switched implants; however, the 2nd group GII received two platform matched implants (3.6 × 11.5 mm) in the canine region of the mandible. The radiographic evaluations were carried out every year for six years, whereas probing pocket depth was evaluated every six months for 72 months for both groups. The data were analyzed by repeated ANOVA, Friedman's, and Student's t-test.

RESULTS

This study included 36 patients; 56 ± 3.6 years was the mean age; 17 females (47%) and 19 males (53%) completed the study. Statistically significant differences were observed in MBL and PPD in each of GI and GII after 6 years, p ≤ 0.05. Between GI and GII after 6 years, a statistically insignificant difference was detected in MBL or PPD, p ≥ 0.05, except in PPD at loading, 2 and 6 years, p ≤ 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Time positively affected MBL and PPD in platform switched and matched implants retained mandibular overdentures. Platform switching influences probing pocket depth in implants retained mandibular overdentures.

Prosthodontic Treatment in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Orofacial Pain and/or Bruxism: A Review of the Literature

Temporomandibular disorders are a group of conditions affecting the temporomandibular joints, the jaw muscles, and related structures. Patients with temporomandibular signs and/or symptoms frequently present with indications for prosthetic treatment. The management of these patients aims to achieve patient comfort, occlusal stability, and the complex restoration of the teeth. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the relationship between prosthodontics and temporomandibular disorders and/or bruxism with a focus on the cause-and-effect implications and the strategies for planning prosthetic treatments in patients with temporomandibular disorders and/or bruxism.