Round and flat zygomatic implants: effectiveness after a 3­year follow­up non­interventional study.

PURPOSE: This non-interventional study investigates variations in the type and frequency of late complications linked to novel zygomatic implant designs, installed adhering to the Zygoma Anatomy-Guided Approach (ZAGA) concept, over an extended follow-up period of at least 3 years. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting indications for treatment with ZIs were treated according to ZAGA recommendations. Implants were immediately loaded. The ORIS success criteria for prosthetic offset, stability, sinus changes and soft-tissue status were used to evaluate the outcome. RESULTS: Twenty patients were treated. Ten patients received two ZIs and regular implants; one received three ZIs plus regular implants, and nine received four ZIs. Fifty-nine ZIs were placed: thirty-six (61%) Straumann ZAGA-Flat implants and twenty-three (39%) Straumann ZAGA-Round implants. Four patients (20%) presented earlier sinus floor discontinuities. Fifteen patients (75%) had prior sinus opacities. Nineteen patients were followed for between 38 and 53 months (mean 46.5 months). One patient dropped out after 20 months. When comparing pre-surgical CBCT with post-surgical CBCT, 84.7% of the sites presented identical or less sinus opacity; nine locations (15%) showed decreased, and another nine increased (15%) post-surgical sinus opacity. Fifty-three ZIs (89.8%) maintained stable soft tissue. Six ZIs had recessions with no signs of infection. ZIs and prosthesis survival rate was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the effectiveness of ZAGA-based zygomatic implant rehabilitations using Round and Flat designs. Despite patient number constraints, minimal changes in the frequency of late complications from the 1-year follow-up were observed. 100% implant and prosthesis survival rate over a mean follow-up of 46.5 months is reported.

Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery.

PURPOSE: This study examined patient satisfaction with conventional complete dentures and mandibular implant overdentures opposing conventional maxillary dentures 6 months after delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous subjects (aged 65 to 75 years) were randomly assigned to either a mandibular conventional denture or an overdenture supported by two implants with ball-shaped retentive anchors. Patients rated their general satisfaction and other features of their prostheses, together with their ability to eat certain food items, on 100-mm visual analogue scales before assignment, and after 2 and 6 months. RESULTS: Both treatment groups reported greater satisfaction with their new prostheses at 6 months. General satisfaction ratings were higher in the implant group than in the conventional denture group by approximately 36% (mean difference 22.3 mm). The implant group also rated comfort (mean difference 22.4 mm), stability (mean difference 28.5 mm), and ability to chew (mean difference 17.3 mm) significantly higher. Significantly higher scores were also given by the implant group for their ability to chew certain hard foods. A trend for an increase in the differences between the groups, in favor of the implant group, was observed between the 2- and 6-month recalls, although the increase was only significant for ease of cleaning. The primary influence on general satisfaction 6 months after the delivery of the prostheses was the provision of the two-implant overdenture. CONCLUSION: Edentulous seniors who received mandibular implant overdentures opposing a conventional denture rated their general satisfaction approximately 36% higher than did a comparable group provided with new conventional dentures.

Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare elderly patients' satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life with mandibular two-implant overdentures and conventional dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous subjects aged 65 to 75 years were randomly assigned to two groups treated with maxillary conventional dentures and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or an overdenture supported by two implants with ball retainers (n = 30). Subjects rated their general satisfaction, as well as other features of their dentures (comfort, stability, ability to chew, speech, esthetics, and cleaning ability), prior to treatment and 2 months postdelivery. Changes in ratings on the original Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and its short form (OHIP-EDENT) were also used as indicators of oral health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The primary outcome of this study, ratings of general satisfaction 2 months postdelivery, was significantly better in the group treated with mandibular two-implant overdentures (P = .001). In addition, the implant group gave significantly higher ratings on comfort, stability, and ability to chew. Furthermore, using OHIP-EDENT, subjects who received mandibular two-implant overdentures had significantly fewer oral health-related quality of life problems than did the conventional group. CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that mandibular two-implant overdentures combined with maxillary conventional dentures provide better function and oral health-related quality of life than conventional dentures.

Surgical placement of two implants in the anterior edentulous mandible--how much time does it take?

In order for clinicians to effectively manage their practices, they need to know how much time they spent in carrying out procedures. The provision of two-implant overdentures for edentulous patients is becoming more prevalent as increasing evidence demonstrates their great benefit to patients. The aim of this study was to measure the number of visits and the time required during the surgical phase (from pre-op examination to preliminary impressions) of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment. Thirty edentulous patients were assigned to receive two root-form implants in the mandible between the mental foramen, as part of a randomized controlled clinical trial. All visits and time spent by the oral surgeon, the surgical assistant and the prosthodontist were measured individually. The mean number of scheduled visits with the oral surgeon was four, and the mean time taken was 104 min. The mean time taken by the surgical assistant was 122 min. On average, the prosthodontist was required for two visits, with a total mean time of 36 min. In addition to the scheduled visits, 14 patients solicited additional appointments (unscheduled visits) for various problems (e.g. loose healing cap). The average time taken for unscheduled visits was 32 min. Combining scheduled and unscheduled visits, the mean total time taken by the oral surgeon was 109 min. The surgical assistant was needed for a mean total of 125 min, and the prosthodontist spent, on average, 46 min in this phase of treatment. Results from this study will assist clinicians in establishing the total time and number of visits needed for the surgical phase of two-implant mandibular overdenture treatment.

Two-implant mandibular overdentures: simple to fabricate and easy to wear.

Success rates for titanium dental implants in the anterior mandible are very high. Because of these success rates, as well as lower costs, it is common to treat edentulous patients with just 2 implants and ball anchors for retention of the overdenture, instead of 4 implants and a bar. In this paper the fabrication of 2-implant overdentures is described. In a controlled clinical trial (to be reported elsewhere), 30 subjects received a 2-implant overdenture for the mandible and a conventional prosthesis for the maxilla. The 30 control patients received conventional complete dentures for both jaws. The stability of the overdentures was excellent, and the lingual dimensions of the denture could be reduced to the level of the mylohyoid line to provide more space for the tongue. In patients with tense labial musculature or a limited amount of attached gingiva, it was important to elevate the shoulder of the implant and ball abutment above the gingival level to avoid peri-implant problems. Significantly fewer visits for adjustment related to post-placement pressure spots were required for mandibular overdentures than for conventional mandibular prostheses.

Does a prosthodontist spend more time providing mandibular two-implant overdentures than conventional dentures?

PURPOSE: In this article, the time taken by a prosthodontist to fabricate and maintain mandibular overdentures retained by two implants and conventional dentures is compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous patients between the ages of 65 and 75 completed a randomized clinical trial. All received new maxillary conventional dentures and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or a two-implant overdenture on ball attachments (n = 30). The time spent by the prosthodontist and the number of visits required for treatment, including both scheduled and unscheduled visits, were recorded for each patient from preliminary impressions to 6 months following delivery. Data from the two groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The prosthodontist spent a mean total time of 296 minutes in treating an implant overdenture patient and 282 minutes on a conventional denture patient during the period from preliminary impressions to the 6-month follow-up. The mean numbers of appointments were 10.1 (implant group) and 10.8 (conventional group). These differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although additional knowledge is required to treat patients with implant prostheses, the time required by the prosthodontist to provide two-implant mandibular overdentures with ball attachments was not significantly different than the time needed for conventional denture treatment.