Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement upon changes in marginal peri-implant bone level. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To systematically assess studies analyzing peri-implant bone loss in implants placed in crestal and subcrestal position. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following the recommended methods for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), an electronic search was conducted in the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and LILACS databases to identify all relevant articles published up until April 2017. The search included human studies comparing marginal bone loss (MBL) between a control group and a study group with a minimum of 10 patients and a minimum follow-up of 6 months after prosthetic loading with rough neck implants. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias in the selected studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration for clinical trials. RESULTS: Of 342 potentially eligible items, 7 complied with the inclusion criteria. One article was retrieved through the manual search. Eight articles were finally included: five experimental and three observational studies. The risk of bias assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration and Newcastle-Ottawa showed a high risk of bias. The mean follow-up period was 21 months (range 6-36 months). In four studies, implants placed in a crestal position presented higher MBL than subcrestal implants - the differences being significant in one study, while in three studies, implants placed in a subcrestal position presented greater MBL than crestal implants, with significant differences in only one study. CONCLUSION: Despite its limitations, the present systematic review did not find better outcomes between crestal and subcrestal implant placement, however, new studies will be needed, involving improved designs and the standardization of protocols to allow statistical comparisons and the drawing of firm conclusions.

Comparison of peri-implant bone loss between conventional drilling with irrigation versus low-speed drilling without irrigation.

BACKGROUND: To compare the technique of high speed drilling with irrigation and low speed drilling without irrigation in order to evaluate the success rate and peri-implant bone loss at 12 months of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was carried out in patients requiring dental implants to rehabilitate their unitary edentulism. Patients were recruited from the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia (Spain) between September 2014 and August 2015. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to two groups: group A (high-speed drilling with irrigation) and group B (low-speed drilling without irrigation). The success rate and peri-implant bone loss were recorded at 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (9 men and 16 women) with 30 implants were enrolled in the study: 15 implants in group A and 15 implants in group B. The mean bone loss of the implants in group A and group B was 0.83 ± 0.73 mm and 0.62 ± 0.70 mm, respectively (p> 0.05). In the maxilla, the bone loss was 1.04 ± 0.63 mm in group A and 0.71 ± 0.36 mm in group B (p> 0.05), while bone loss in the mandible was 0.59 ± 0.80 mm in group A and 0.69 ± 0.77 mm in group B (p> 0.05). The implant success rate at 12 months was 93.3% in group A and 100% in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the low-speed drilling technique presented peri-implant bone loss outcomes similar to those of the conventional drilling technique at 12 months of follow-up.

Influence of the prosthetic arm length (palatal position) of zygomatic implants upon patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of the prosthetic arm length (palatal position) of zygomatic implants upon patient comfort and stability, speech, functionality and overall satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective clinical study was made of patients subjected to rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla with complete maxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses involving a minimum of two zygomatic implants (one on each side) in conjunction with premaxillary implants, and with 12 months of follow-up after implant loading. Subjects used a VAS to score general satisfaction, comfort and stability, speech and functionality, and the results were analyzed in relation to the prosthetic arm length of the zygomatic implants 12 months after prosthetic delivery. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients participated in the study, receiving 22 prostheses anchored on 148 implants (44 were zygomatic and 94 were conventional implants). The mean right and left prosthetic arm length was 5.9±2.4 mm and 6.1±2.7 mm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between them (p=0.576). The mean scores referred to comfort/retention, speech, functionality and overall satisfaction were high - no correlation being found between prosthetic arm length and patient satisfaction (p=0.815). CONCLUSIONS: No relationship could be identified between prosthetic arm length (palatal position) and patient satisfaction.