Patient Satisfaction and Impact on Oral Health after Maxillary Rehabilitation Using a Personalized Additively Manufactured Subperiosteal Jaw Implant (AMSJI)

Personalized Rehabilitation of Atrophic Customized Subperiosteal Implants

Severe maxillary atrophy and edentulism can pose a range of challenges in implant planning and oral rehabilitation. Modern dentistry has allowed for a review of the concepts and surgical protocols of subperiosteal implants, presenting them as a solution for the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillary and mandibular bone deficiencies. This study aims to address a series of 3 patients with severe maxillary atrophy, as evidenced by presurgical and postsurgical radiographic images, as well as computer-assisted planning and analysis of patient anatomy for rehabilitation with custom sintered subperiosteal implants. Promising results these clinical cases, highlighting the precise technique, biocompatibility, and durability of these materials. The absence of postoperative complications was evident, with high success rates in procedures and patient reports. Importantly, periodic follow-up is needed to assess the longevity and effectiveness of the technique used.

Subperiosteal implants constructed with digital technology: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Atrophied jaw is a condition where there is insufficient bone quantity and quality. Several treatment plans are available for treating atrophied jaws, including subperiosteal implants.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the spectrum of subperiosteal implants for severely atrophied jaws using digital technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic and manual search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Publications of cohort studies, case series, and case reports written in English without data restrictions that reported on subperiosteal implant management of patients with severely atrophied jaws in a completely and partially edentulous population.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles, comprising 302 cases, were analyzed. In patients with severely atrophied jaws. The success rate was 87.7%, the surviving rate was 95.3%. The most common complications were biological, such as dehiscence and framework exposure. The rates of biologic complications were 11.5%, and the rates of prosthetic problems were 5.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Subperiosteal implants designed and constructed using digital technology are a promising treatment in the short term. Attention should be directed to decrease the biological complication. Correct designing, implanting, fixing, and patient selection and maintenance are critical for the success of the treatment. Longer prospective studies with larger population are needed to view the effect on hard and soft tissue.

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess implant survival and complications rate of modern subperiosteal implants (CAD designed and additively manufactured).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: "In patients with bone atrophy (P), do additively manufactured subperiosteal implants (I), compared to subperiosteal implants manufactured following traditional approaches (c), present satisfactory implant survival and complication rates (O)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023424211). Included articles quality was assessed using the "NIH quality assessment tools".

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were finally selected (5 cohort studies and 8 case series), including 227 patients (121 female / 106 male; weighted mean age 62.4 years) and 227 implants. After a weighted mean follow-up time of 21.4 months, 97.8% of implants were in function (5 failures reported), 58 implants (25.6%) presented partial exposure, 12 patients (5.3%) suffered soft tissue or persistent infection. Fracture of the interim prosthesis was reported in 8 of the155 patients (5.2%) in which the use of a provisional prosthesis was reported. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, modern additively manufactured subperiosteal implants presented a good survival in the short-time, but a noticeable number of soft-tissue related complications were reported. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical behavior in the medium- and long-term.