Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 30(11): 1097-1106, 2019 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31400242

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patient population over a 3-year period and to compare it to observations of the population at the same clinic over a period of 15 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Records of patients receiving dental implants in the Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, University of Bern, between January 2014 and December 2016 were analyzed and then compared with data from patients treated between 2002 and 2004 and between 2008 and 2010. Patients were analyzed for demographics and for indications for therapy, as well as for presence or absence and type of complications. Inserted implants were analyzed for type, length, and diameter, as well as for the number and type of associated tissue regeneration procedures. RESULTS: Analysis revealed a continuous linear increase in the average age of patients seeking implant treatment. The most common indication for implant therapy was a single-tooth gap (STG) (50.5%), followed by distal extension situations (22.3%) and extended edentulous gaps (20.5%). A total of 60.8% of implants placed needed some type of bone augmentation, and 83.5% of implants placed in the anterior maxilla required simultaneous augmentation. Staged guided bone regeneration (GBR) was only necessary in 7% of the cases. Implant failure rates remained low at 0.6%, with postoperative hematomas being the most common postoperative complication (13.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The rising demand for dental implants continues as the patient population ages. Single-tooth gaps remained consistently the most common indication for implant therapy in recent years. Proper case selection and evidence-based surgical protocols are essential for high success rates.


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Restoration Failure , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Humans , Maxilla , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
2.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 29 Suppl 16: 215-223, 2018 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30328196

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS: A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported , Dentistry , Prosthodontics , Ceramics/therapeutic use , Consensus , Crowns/standards , Dental Abutments , Dental Implant-Abutment Design/methods , Dental Implantation, Endosseous/standards , Dental Implants/statistics & numerical data , Dental Materials/therapeutic use , Dental Prosthesis Design/methods , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported/methods , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported/standards , Dental Restoration Failure , Dental Restoration, Permanent/standards , Denture, Complete/standards , Denture, Partial, Fixed/standards , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Metal Ceramic Alloys/therapeutic use , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Zirconium/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...