The rehabilitation of posterior atrophic maxilla by using the graftless option of short implant versus conventional long implant with sinus graft: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trial

A Technical Note on a Modified Subcrestal Buccal Flap Approach to All-on-Four: A Case Report

This case report describes a dual full-arch rehabilitation focusing on a modified buccal incision for installation of four implants for full-arch rehabilitation of an edentulous maxilla. A modified buccal incision was performed in the subcrestal buccal region to promote direct access to the periosteum without incising the muscles in the region. For the installation of anterior implants, an 8.5 mm implant was locked in the cortical bone of the alveolar ridge and in the cortical bone of the floor of the pyriform cavity. The drilling point of the posterior implants was defined using the anterior implants as a visual reference, and the entry point could be visually estimated from the topography of the palatal surface of the maxilla. After bone leveling, the drilling enlargement sequence was carried out using drills that allowed the installation of long implants (18 mm). Straight mini-abutments were installed in the anterior implants and angled at 30º in the posterior implants. The flap was then perforated in the exact region where the mini-abutments were located. The buccal incision line was sutured with continuous 5-0 nylon suture. On the following day, aesthetic tests were carried out with teeth mounting. The patient presented minimal edema, and the lip motricity and smile width were completely preserved. The prosthesis was delivered five days after surgery. The suture was removed, and the prosthesis was installed while maintaining compression on the gingival tissue. The patient reported no pain during the prosthesis installation. The modified buccal flap enables implant placement for full-arch rehabilitation of an edentulous maxilla.

Comparing short implants to standard dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up

PURPOSE

To compare the difference of marginal level changes (MBL), implant failure (IF), biological and prosthetic complications (BC and PC), and prosthetic failure (PF) of short implants (SH) and standard implants (ST).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov) and manual searches were performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SH to ST. Applying Stata, a meta-analysis was conducted on the weighted mean difference (WMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) of MBL and the risk difference (RD) of the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were involved in the present study. There were statistically significant differences in MBLs, preferring short implants in the maxilla (WMD: -0.147 (CI: -0.224, -0.070), I2: 76.6%; SMD: -0.757 (CI: -1.226, -0.289), I2: 89.2%) and in the mandible (WMD: -0.377 (CI: -0.656, -0.098), I2: 85.8%; SMD: -0.811 (CI: -1.418, -0.204), I2: 78.8%). There were no significant differences in IF (RD: 0.011 (-0.002, 0.023), I2: 0.0%), PF (RD:0.003 (-0.007, 0.014), I2: 0.0%), and PC (RD:0.001 (-0.008, 0.010), I2: 0.0%). There were significantly higher biological complications (RD: -0.071 (-0.106, -0.036), I2: 0.82.9%) for ST compared to SH in both jaws up to a 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SH and ST had comparable overall outcomes, but short implants had less marginal bone loss and lower biological complications. However, more research is needed to confirm these findings.

Specially designed and CAD/CAM manufactured allogeneic bone blocks using for augmentation of a highly atrophic maxilla show a stable base for an all-on-six treatment concept: a case report

Background

In terms of a highly atrophic maxilla, bone augmentation still remains very challenging. With the introduction of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) for allogeneic bone blocks, a new method for the treatment of bone deficiencies was created. This case report demonstrates the successful use of two specially designed and CAD/CAM manufactured allogeneic bone blocks for a full arch reconstruction of a highly atrophic maxilla with an all-on-six concept.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 55-year-old male patient with a highly atrophic maxilla and severe bone volume deficiencies in horizontal and vertical lines. In order to treat the defects, the surgeon decided to use a combination of two allogeneic bone blocks and two sinus floor augmentations. The bone blocks were fabricated from the data of a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) using CAD/CAM technology. After the insertion of the two bone blocks and a healing period of 7 months, six dental implants were placed in terms of an all-on-six concept. The loading of the implants took place after an additional healing time of 7 months with a screw-retained prosthetic construction and with a milled titanium framework with acrylic veneers.

Conclusion

The presented procedure shows the importance of the precise design of CAD/CAM manufactured allogeneic bone blocks for the successful treatment of a highly atrophic maxilla. Proper soft-tissue management is one of the key factors to apply this method successfully.

Implant failure rate and the prevalence of associated risk factors: a 6-year retrospective observational survey

Introduction: The purpose of this monocentric retrospective observational investigation is to evaluate the implant failure rate observed in an oral surgery department and analyze the risk factors associated with them. Preventative measures will be suggested to reduce the incidence of implant failure. Material and method: All implants removed between 2014 and 2020 were analyzed. The main criterion assessed was the overall failure rate over 6 years of activity;the secondary criteria were the risk factors associated with implant failure. Results: 12 out of 376 implants placed between 2014 and 2019 in 11 patients (mean age: 55.5 ±11.5 years);sex ratio M/F=5/6) were removed, for an overall failure rate of 3.11%. The majority, 83% (10/12) of the lost implants, were in the maxilla, while only 17% (2/12) were placed in the mandible. The main risk factors identified were: a III−IV bone type density (75%, 9/12), pre-implant sinus lift surgery (42%, 5/12) smoking (8.3%, 1/12), surgical site infection (8.3%, 1/12) and rheumatoid arthritis (8.3%, 1/12). Conclusion: The failure rate observed in this oral surgery unit is consistent with the other international studies, confirming the compliance with good clinical practices of the healthcare team. Pre-implant bone surgery is the major risk factor to consider before implant surgery.