Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 50(2): 242-250, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32921557

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare computer-guided (fully guided) and freehand implant placement surgery in terms of marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019135893). Two independent investigators performed the search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to April 2020 and identified 1508 references. After a detailed review, only four studies were considered eligible. These studies involved a total of 154 patients with 597 dental implants and a mean follow-up period of 2.25 years. There was no difference between computer-guided surgery and freehand surgery in terms of the marginal bone loss (mean difference -0.11mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 0.04mm; P=0.16), mechanical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-2.04; P=0.72), biological complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.42-5.74; P=0.51), and implant survival rate (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11-2.43; P=0.41). This meta-analysis demonstrated that both computer-guided and freehand surgeries yielded similar results for marginal bone loss, mechanical and biological complications, and implant survival rate.


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Computers , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Dental Restoration Failure , Humans
2.
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent ; 29(2): 76-83, 2021 Feb 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33146474

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to assess the effects of splinting in 3-unit implant-supported prostheses with varying the splinting factor, length of the implant, and the diameter of the 1°molar (1°M) implant on cortical bone tissue (CBT). Twelve 3D models were simulated, which represented the posterior maxillary with 3 implants, supporting 3-unit FDP varying the splinting factor (single-unit crowns, splinted crowns straight-line and offset implant configuration [OIC]), length of the implant (7mm and 8,5mm), and the diameter of the 1°M (Ø4 mm and Ø5 mm). The CBT was analyzed by maximum principal stress and microstrain maps. The increase in implant diameter improved the biomechanical behavior of rehabilitation. The increase of the implant diameter in the 1°M associated with OIC generated the best biomechanical behavior for CBT. The splinting was effective in decreasing stress and microstrain, mainly when associated with OIC and implant diameter of Ø5 in the 1°M. The effect of increasing the diameter of the implant referring to the 1°M for single-unit crowns was more effective than the effect of the splinting of implants with Ø4 mm in straight-line. The diameter and splinting factors showed to be more important than implant length to reduce the stress and microstrain on CBT.


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported , Biomechanical Phenomena , Crowns , Dental Prosthesis Design , Dental Stress Analysis , Finite Element Analysis , Stress, Mechanical
3.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 50(5): 674-682, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33158693

ABSTRACT

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.03; P=0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference -0.51mm, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.26mm; P=0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; P=0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P=0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic.


Subject(s)
Alveolar Bone Loss , Dental Implants , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Dental Prosthesis Design , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported , Dental Restoration Failure , Humans
4.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 49(9): 1220-1231, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29685387

ABSTRACT

No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P=0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P=0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P=0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.


Subject(s)
Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Dental Implants , Humans , Surgical Flaps
6.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 47(10): 1336-1342, 2018 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29555240

ABSTRACT

No consensus has been reached on the use of dental implants in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients. This systematic review evaluated dental implants in HIV-positive patients in terms of implant survival and success rates, marginal bone loss, and complications. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until October 2017. Six studies were selected for review. In total, 821 implants were placed: 493 in 169 HIV-positive patients, and 328 in 135 HIV-negative patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 47.9 months. Weighted mean survival rate, success rate, and marginal bone loss values were calculated for the HIV-positive patients. Mean survival and success rates at the patient level (according to the number of patients) were 94.76% and 93.81%, respectively; when calculated at the implant level (according to the number of implants), these rates were 94.53% and 90.37%, respectively. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.83mm at the patient level and 0.99mm at the implant level. Thus, dental implants are suitable for the rehabilitation of HIV-positive patients with controlled risk factors and normal CD4+ cell counts.


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Restoration Failure , HIV Seropositivity , Alveolar Bone Loss , Humans , Postoperative Complications
7.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 47(9): 1166-1177, 2018 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29459128

ABSTRACT

The aim of this meta-analysis was to verify the clinical viability of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO). An electronic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed (end date July 2017); this was supplemented by a manual search of the literature. Only prospective clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SIMO with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method. Dental implant and prosthetic failure were the dichotomous outcome measures; these were evaluated through the risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of 499 articles identified, nine fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 205 implants were placed in patients with a mean age of 64.1 years; the cumulative survival rate was 96.6% over a mean follow-up period of 37.3 months. The procedure used (SIMO vs. two implant-retained mandibular overdenture) did not affect dental implant failure (P=0.45) or prosthetic failure (P=0.65): RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.91-1.23) and RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.51-1.51), respectively; OR 2.56 (95% CI 0.27-24.39; P=0.41) and OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.15-1.26; P=0.13), respectively. Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, SIMO with a complete denture as the opposing arch may be considered an alternative treatment for completely edentulous patients. However, this study also confirmed the need for more RCTs on this topic.


Subject(s)
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported , Denture, Overlay , Mandible , Dental Implants, Single-Tooth , Dental Prosthesis Design , Dental Restoration Failure , Humans
8.
J Oral Rehabil ; 45(4): 344-354, 2018 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29314199

ABSTRACT

No consensus has been reached regarding the best occlusal scheme for making complete dentures. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare bilateral balanced occlusion (BBO) with other occlusal schemes (canine guidance, lingualised occlusion and zero degree) in complete dentures. The schemes were compared in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published in or before October 2017 using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The focused question was: "In conventional complete denture, is BBO better than lingualised occlusion, canine guidance and zero degree in terms of quality of life, patient satisfaction and masticatory performance/muscle activity?" Seventeen studies were selected for analysis. In total, there were 492 patients with a mean age of 64.78 years and a mean follow-up duration of 2.96 months (range: 1-6 months). All studies compared BBO with the other occlusal schemes. Eleven studies evaluated the influence of the occlusal scheme designs on quality of life and satisfaction, and 8 studies evaluated masticatory performance and muscle activity between BBO and the other occlusion schemes. The present systematic review indicated that BBO does not confer better quality of life/satisfaction or masticatory performance and muscle activity. Thus, lingualised occlusion can be considered a predictable occlusal scheme for complete dentures in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance, while canine guidance can be used to reduce muscular activity.


Subject(s)
Dental Occlusion, Balanced , Denture, Complete , Mastication/physiology , Mouth, Edentulous/surgery , Dental Occlusion, Balanced/standards , Denture Design , Humans , Mouth, Edentulous/physiopathology , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Life
9.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 47(4): 480-491, 2018 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28651805

ABSTRACT

There is currently no consensus regarding the survival rate of osseointegrated implants in patients with osteoporosis. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the survival rate of implants in such patients. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO databases were used to identify articles published up to September 2016. The systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA/PICO requirements and the risk of bias was assessed (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council scale). The relative risk (RR) of implant failure and mean marginal bone loss were analyzed within a 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifteen studies involving 8859 patients and 29,798 implants were included. The main outcome of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference in implant survival rate between patients with and without osteoporosis, either at the implant level (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93-2.08; P=0.11) or at the patient level (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50-1.89; P=0.94). However, the meta-analysis for the secondary outcome revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between patients with and without osteoporosis (0.18mm, 95% CI 0.05-0.30, P=0.005). Data heterogeneity was low. An increase in peri-implant bone loss was observed in the osteoporosis group. Randomized and controlled clinical studies should be conducted to analyze possible biases.


Subject(s)
Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Dental Implants , Dental Restoration Failure , Osteoporosis/complications , Humans
10.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 46(9): 1162-1177, 2017 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28478869

ABSTRACT

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survival rate of the implants and the peri-implant tissue changes associated with implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets and those inserted in healed sockets. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42016043309. A systematic search was conducted by two reviewers independently in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using different search terms; articles published until November 2016 were searched for. The searches identified 30 eligible studies. A total of 3,049 implants were installed in a total of 1,435 patients with a mean age of 46.68 years and a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. The survival rate of delayed implants (98.38%) was significantly greater than immediate implants (95.21%) (p=.001). For the marginal bone loss (p=.32), implant stability quotients values (p=.44), and pocket probing depth (p=.94) there was no significant difference between the analysed groups. The immediate implants placed in fresh sockets should be performed with caution because of the significantly lower survival rates than delayed implants inserted in healed sockets.


Subject(s)
Dental Implantation, Endosseous/methods , Dental Implants, Single-Tooth , Tooth Socket/surgery , Dental Restoration Failure , Humans , Immediate Dental Implant Loading/methods , Tooth Extraction
11.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 45(3): 332-45, 2016 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26723496

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the possible benefits of platform-switching (PSW) implants when compared to regular platform (RP) implants in the categories of bone preservation and longevity. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement, PICO question, and Jadad scale. The relative risk (RR) of failure and the mean difference for marginal bone loss were calculated considering a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were performed, and funnel plots drawn. Twenty-five studies (17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight prospective studies) involving 1098 patients and 2310 implants were analysed. The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in crestal bone loss for PSW implants compared with RP implants (-0.41mm, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.29, P<0.00001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in implant failure (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.6-2.02, P=0.75). A reduction in bone loss with PSW implants was observed for the following subgroups: RCTs only, implants in the maxilla, and implants in the mandible. PSW implants presented lower bone resorption compared with RP implants. RCTs should be done to explain the possible biases.


Subject(s)
Alveolar Bone Loss/prevention & control , Dental Implant-Abutment Design , Humans
12.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 45(4): 517-25, 2016 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26775635

ABSTRACT

This systematic review evaluated the effect on bone formation and implant survival of combining platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with bone grafts in maxillary augmentation. A comprehensive review of articles listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases covering the period January 2000 to January 2015 was performed. The meta-analysis was based on bone formation for which the mean difference (MD, in millimetres) was calculated. Implant survival was assessed as a dichotomous outcome and evaluated using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 3303 references. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 17 studies were selected for qualitative analysis and 13 for quantitative analysis. A total of 369 patients (mean age 51.67 years) and 621 maxillary sinus augmentations were evaluated. After the data analysis, additional analyses were performed of the implant stability quotient, marginal bone loss, and alveolar bone height measured by MD. The results showed no significant difference in implant stability (P=0.32, MD 1.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 2.98), marginal bone loss (P=0.31, MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.16), alveolar bone height (P=0.10, MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.14), implant survival (P=0.22, RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.67-5.69), or bone formation (P=0.81, MD -0.63, 95% CI -5.91 to 4.65). In conclusion, the meta-analysis indicates no influence of PRP with bone graft on bone formation and implant survival in maxillary sinus augmentation.


Subject(s)
Bone Transplantation/methods , Platelet-Rich Plasma , Sinus Floor Augmentation/methods , Graft Survival , Humans , Osteogenesis
13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23947571

ABSTRACT

The retaining screw of the implant-supported dental prosthesis is the weakest point of the crown/implant system. Furthermore, crown height is another important factor that may increase the lever arm. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the stress distribution in implant prosthetic screws with different heights of the clinical crown of the prosthesis using the method of three-dimensional finite element analysis. Three models were created with implants (3.75 mm × 10 mm) and crowns (heights of 10, 12.5 and 15 mm). The results were visualised by means of von Mises stress maps that increased the crown heights. The screw structure exhibited higher levels of stresses in the oblique load. The oblique loading resulted in higher stress concentration when compared with the axial loading. It is concluded that the increase of the crown was damaging to the stress distribution on the screw, mainly in oblique loading.


Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Prosthesis Retention/instrumentation , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported/instrumentation , Finite Element Analysis , Humans , Stress, Mechanical
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...