-
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2015The purpose of this first part of a two-part series was to review the literature concerning the indications, contraindications, advantages, disadvantages and surgical... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this first part of a two-part series was to review the literature concerning the indications, contraindications, advantages, disadvantages and surgical techniques of the lateralization and transposition of the inferior alveolar nerve, followed by the placement of an implant in an edentulous atrophic posterior mandible.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by accessing the NCBI PubMed and PMC database, academic sites and books. The articles were searched from January 1997 to July 2014 and comprised English-language articles that included adult patients between 18 and 80 years old with minimal residual bone above the mandibular canal who had undergone inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) repositioning with a minimum 6 months of follow-up.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies were included in this review. Nine were related to IAN transposition, 4 to IAN lateralization and 3 to both transposition and lateralization. Implant treatment results and complications were presented.
CONCLUSIONS
Inferior alveolar nerve lateralization and transposition in combination with the installation of dental implants is sometimes the only possible procedure to help patients to obtain a fixed prosthesis, in edentulous atrophic posterior mandibles. With careful pre-operative surgical and prosthetic planning, imaging, and extremely precise surgical technique, this procedure can be successfully used for implant placement in edentulous posterior mandibular segments.
PubMed: 25937873
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2014.6102 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2016The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.
RESULTS
After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous
PubMed: 25664612
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531 -
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Oct 2014The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria.
PURPOSE
The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected.
RESULTS
Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies.
CONCLUSION
For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.
PubMed: 25352954
DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.5.325