-
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi =... Dec 2018Peri-implantitis, restoration loosening and fracture, implant structural damage are common post-restorative complications in implant rehabilitation. With an increasing... (Review)
Review
Peri-implantitis, restoration loosening and fracture, implant structural damage are common post-restorative complications in implant rehabilitation. With an increasing incidence, they may occur in implant-supported single or splinted crowns, bridges, overdenture or fixed denture. Possible causes involve not only the design of implant components structure and characteristics of restorative materials, but also the design of restoration and the occlusal function and structure of patients. Despite the hard texture of teeth, occlusal force may cause abrasion to occlusal and proximal aspects, as well as mesial migration of tooth, leading to continuous change of occlusal structure and function through the whole life. It should be considered in implant placement surgery, design and maintenance of restorations. From considerations of occlusal function and structure, the present article reviews and elaborates the effect, potential hazard, management and prophylaxis of post-implant-restorative complications.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Occlusion; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 30522201
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.12.002 -
Odonto-stomatologie Tropicale =... Sep 2015Removable dentures are always transient current. The epidemiology and causes of tooth gaps demonstrate the need to master the different prosthetic treatment. This made...
Removable dentures are always transient current. The epidemiology and causes of tooth gaps demonstrate the need to master the different prosthetic treatment. This made whether to propose treatment plans that take into account psychological, physiological and technical support for this patient. Different situations may arise. A gradual transition may be considered or immediate passage to the total edentulous according to general criteria, local and desiderata of patients. After tooth extraction, the transitional prosthesis can control bone lysis thereby it is part of a complete treatment before prosthesis. It also facilitates a good psychological and physiological integration before the prosthesis use.
Topics: Dental Abutments; Dental Implants; Dental Occlusion, Balanced; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Design; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete, Immediate; Denture, Overlay; Denture, Partial, Immediate; Denture, Partial, Temporary; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Patient Care Planning; Periodontal Diseases; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 26930772
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2018The technique described offers a digital workflow for designing and fabricating a combination cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis. After making the...
The technique described offers a digital workflow for designing and fabricating a combination cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis. After making the definitive impression and definitive stone cast, the definitive combination prosthesis is digitally designed. Custom-milled titanium abutments and cementable superstructure prosthesis are designed and milled by having occlusal access channels of the prosthesis correspond to the occlusal access channels of the custom abutments. After intraorally confirming the esthetics, occlusion, and fit, the prosthesis is cemented intraorally and removed as a screw-retained prosthesis. After excess cement is removed, the combination prosthesis is placed intraorally, and composite resin is used to seal the occlusal access channels.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Software
PubMed: 28927920
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.019 -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... Oct 2015Inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses (IRFDPs) represent a minimally invasive alternative to conventional fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) to replace single posterior... (Review)
Review
Inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses (IRFDPs) represent a minimally invasive alternative to conventional fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) to replace single posterior missing teeth. The aim of the present review article is to assess the clinical outcome of different IRFDPs in order to derive recommendations regarding their clinical application. Hence, it is essential to highlight important factors that influence the longevity and success of IRFDPs, such as treatment plan, appropriate case selection with proper indications, as well as tooth preparation. Furthermore, a good understanding of bonding technologies and awareness of pretreatment procedures for different materials are indispensable for the long-term success of IRFDPs.
Topics: Ceramics; Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded; Humans; Inlays; Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic
PubMed: 26287024
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a34552 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2022To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan-Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated.
RESULTS
Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed.
CONCLUSIONS
Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment.
Topics: Humans; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Implants; Retrospective Studies; Cohort Studies; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Dental Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 35976496
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04673-w -
British Dental Journal Sep 2019
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
PubMed: 31562446
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-019-0804-7 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2018The reliability of combining natural teeth and implants in one removable prosthesis is controversial. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prognosis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The reliability of combining natural teeth and implants in one removable prosthesis is controversial. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prognosis of combined tooth/implant-supported double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses (DCR-RDPs) and to compare them with solely implant-supported prostheses with a minimum observation period of 3 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic database (PubMed, Embase, Central, and SCI) and manual searches up to August 2016 were conducted to identify human clinical studies on tooth/implant-supported DCR-RDPs. Literature selection and data extraction were accomplished by two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of survival and complication rates were performed separately for combined tooth/implant-supported and solely implant-supported DCRRDPs.
RESULTS
Among the initially identified 366 articles, 17 were included in a quantitative analysis. The estimated overall cumulative survival rate (CSR) for implants in combined tooth/implant-supported DCRRDPs was 98.72% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 96.98% to 99.82%), and that for implants in solely implant-supported DCR-RDPs was 98.83% (95% CI: 97.45% to 99.75%). The summary CSR for abutment teeth was 92.96% (95% CI: 85.38% to 98.12%). Double-crown-retained dentures with both abutment types showed high CSRs, most of which were approximately 100%. Regarding prosthetic maintenance treatment, the estimated incidence for patients treated with combined tooth/implant-supported RDPs was 0.164 (95% CI: 0.089 to 0.305) per patient per year (T/P/Y) and that for patients restored with solely implant-supported RDPs was 0.260 (95% CI: 0.149 to 0.454) T/P/Y. Based on four studies with combined tooth/implant-supported DCR-RDPs, no intrusion phenomena were encountered.
CONCLUSION
Subject to the limitations of the present review, combining remaining teeth and implants in DCR-RDPs is a reliable and predictable treatment modality for partially edentulous patients. Comparable high survival rates and minor biologic or technical complications are observed for combined tooth/implant-supported and solely implant-supported DCR-RDPs. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, the results must be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Abutments; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture Retention; Denture, Partial, Removable; Female; Humans; Male; Prognosis; Reproducibility of Results; Tooth
PubMed: 28938029
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5796 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Jan 2022The purpose of this article is to discuss the considerations that need to be evaluated when considering the replacement of an existing maxillary anterior fixed dental...
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this article is to discuss the considerations that need to be evaluated when considering the replacement of an existing maxillary anterior fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with another FDP, or when to consider converting to implants and individual crowns on the previous abutment teeth.
OVERVIEW
The need to replace unesthetic or failing maxillary anterior FDPs is something all restorative dentists will be faced with multiple times in their careers. Given the emphasis over the past few decades on utilizing implants for tooth replacement as opposed to a tooth supported FDP, the question becomes when is converting the existing FDP to implants and single crowns an appropriate choice, as opposed to redoing a new FDP. This article will focus on the risks of choosing to convert to an implant solution, and the risks of redoing the tooth supported FDP. Multiple systematic reviews on each approach will be used to aid in the decision process. The most significant risks for both approaches will be identified, and a chart of the key parameters to assess will be presented, along with their impact.
CONCLUSIONS
The statistical outcomes at 5 and 10 years of tooth supported FDPs, and Implant based restorations are very similar if certain clinical parameters are met, namely vital healthy abutment teeth for the FDP, and adequate bone and soft tissue for the implant-based restoration. If one abutment tooth is compromised the long-term prognosis drops significantly and converting to an implant-based restoration may be more predictable. Similarly, if adequate bone and soft tissue cannot be obtained through surgical augmentation procedures, using a connective tissue graft for the ridge, and redoing the FDP may obtain a more acceptable esthetic result.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A significant number of maxillary anterior FDPs exist that will need replacement in the future. Given the desire of many dentists to utilize implants when possible, there can be a tendency to automatically treatment plan an implant-based approach for replacement of the existing FDP. Certainly, most clinicians would favor an implant-based tooth replacement rather than preparing unrestored teeth to place an FDP, but when an existing FDP exists, the teeth have already been prepared for full coverage in most instances. In addition, for most long term existing FDPs, there is a significant change in the vertical and horizontal dimension of the bone and soft tissue that can make getting an acceptable esthetic result with an implant challenging. This article provides a systematic approach to identifying when redoing the FDP may be preferable, or when converting to an implant-based approach is a better choice.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Maxilla
PubMed: 34870356
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12852 -
The International Journal of... 2017This systematic review evaluated treatment outcomes for mandibular mini-implant-retained overdentures (MMIOs) in terms of (1) implant survival rate, (2) peri-implant... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review evaluated treatment outcomes for mandibular mini-implant-retained overdentures (MMIOs) in terms of (1) implant survival rate, (2) peri-implant marginal bone loss, (3) prosthodontic maintenance and complication occurrence, and (4) patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pertinent literature published in English before October 12, 2015 was identified using a MEDLINE and EMBASE search strategy and hand searching of relevant journals. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the titles and abstracts and subsequently to the full text of included studies. A total of 16 articles were included, from which qualitative and quantitative data were extracted for analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 16 evaluated articles, 5 were randomized controlled trials, 8 were prospective studies, and 3 were retrospective studies. The follow-up time range from implant placement was 1 to 6 years, and only four studies included more than 3 years of follow-up. The mini-implant survival rate ranged from 86.9% to 100%. Mean marginal bone resorption was 0.28 to 1.2 mm after 1 year of loading. Of the 16 studies, 5 reported prosthodontic maintenance and complications, and all included studies showed significant improvement in patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
Despite the limitations of this systematic review, particularly the short follow-up periods, the results suggest that MMIOs showed predictable results regarding implant survival rates, marginal bone resorption, and patient satisfaction.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture Design; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Mandible; Patient Satisfaction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28319212
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4929 -
BMC Oral Health Sep 2021When dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important...
BACKGROUND
When dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important factors play a role in his decision-making process, including his limited financial means and his efforts to solve the problem of missing teeth as effectively as possible. The main goal of the study is the economic-clinical evaluation of implant treatment, as a surgical-prosthetic method in dentistry, in case of replacement of one missing tooth of the molar area.
METHODS
Cost-utility analysis from the patient's perspective is used for evaluation. The selected comparator is a purely prosthetic solution with the help of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Cost-utility analysis is modelled using Markov models, which consider a 30-year time horizon.
RESULTS
Based on the results of modelling, the intervention evaluated by the patient, i.e. treatment with the help of implant-supported single crown, brings exactly 15.31 quality-adjusted prosthesis years (QAPY) after 30 years. The value of incremental cost-utility ratio amounted to USD - 1434.
CONCLUSION
The results of the cost-utility analysis suggest that implant treatment with an implant-supported single crown is more cost-effective than treatment with the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Molar
PubMed: 34488727
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01790-y