Radial Head Arthroplasty for Fracture: Implant Survivorship and Outcomes at Mean Follow-up of 8 Years.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship and clinical outcomes following radial head arthroplasty for fracture at long-term follow-ups. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients who underwent primary uncemented radial head arthroplasty for radial head or neck fractures between 2012 and 2015. Medical records were reviewed to collect information regarding demographics, injury characteristics, reoperations, and revisions requiring implant removal. A bivariate analysis was conducted to identify potential risk factors for reoperation. A Kaplan-Meier curve was created to determine implant survival rates. Eligible patients were contacted to confirm any reoperations and obtain Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores at long-term follow-ups. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were eligible for analysis and assessed at a mean of 97 months after surgery (range, 81-128). Reoperation rate was 16% (14 of 89 patients), including 5% of patients requiring implant removal or revision. However, 93% of reoperations occurred within the first 12 months of the index surgery. Fracture dislocations of the elbow had a higher rate of reoperation. A Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated an implant survival rate of 96% at 10-year follow-up. Of the patients who responded, the mean Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 8.7 ± 10.3, with none requiring additional reoperations or revisions. There were otherwise similar outcome scores among patients requiring reoperation versus those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Although radial head arthroplasty for fractures has a high potential for reoperation within the first year, survival rates with uncemented implants remain high at 10 years, and patients report excellent Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores at long-term follow-ups, despite any need for reoperation. Fractures with associated elbow dislocation may be at a higher risk for reoperation, and it is important to provide this prognostic information to patients who are likely to require arthroplasty for more extensive injuries. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Carga inmediata de implantes extra cortos en sectores posteriores. Estudios retrospective con tres modelos de carga: 24, 48 hs y 7 días / Immediate loading of extra short implants in posterior sectors. Retrospective study with three loading models: 24 hs, 48 hs and 7 days

Los implantes extra-cortos son cada vez más utili-zados en la práctica clínica diaria. La utilización de estos implantes con carga inmediata supone un reto añadido. Clásicamente se ha postulado que la carga inmediata debe realizarse después de 24 horas de la cirugía. En la siguiente serie de casos analizamos diferentes tiempos a la hora de realizar la carga in-mediata y su posible repercusión. Fueron recolec-tados de forma retrospectiva datos sobre casos de implantes extra-cortos (5,5 y 6,5 mm) en los que fue realizada una carga inmediata en sectores poste-riores. El implante fue la unidad de análisis para la estadística descriptiva en cuanto a la localización, dimensiones del implante, y mediciones radiográ-ficas. El paciente fue la unidad de medida para el análisis de la edad, sexo y la historia clínica. La prin-cipal variable estudiada fue la supervivencia de los implantes extra-cortos con carga inmediata en tres períodos de tiempo determinados: 24 hs, 48 hs y 7 días y como variables secundarias se han estudiado, la estabilidad del hueso crestal en general y en los tres períodos de carga anteriormente mencionados, las complicaciones protésicas y la supervivencia de las prótesis. Fueron reclutados 74 pacientes en los que se insertaron 146 implantes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. Todos los implantes fueron cargados mediante carga inmediata en tres perío-dos determinados de tiempo: 24 hs (40 implantes), 48 hs (42 implantes) y 7 días (42 implantes). Todos los implantes fueron ferulizados a otros implantes ge-nerándose puentes de dos o más unidades, con di-ferente longitud. En el grupo de implantes con carga inmediata en 24 hs la media de la pérdida ósea distal de todos los implantes fue de 0,21 mm (+/-0,84) y la media de la pérdida ósea mesial en este grupo fue de 0,33 mm (+/- 0,53). En el grupo de carga inmediata en 48 hs, la media de la pérdida ósea distal de todos los implantes fue de 0,20 mm (+/- 0,82) y la media de la pérdida ósea mesial fue de 0,22 mm (+/- 0,81). En el grupo de carga de 7 días, la pérdida ósea me-sial del grupo fue de 0,28 mm (+/- 0,51) y la media de la pérdida ósea distal fue de 0,17 mm (+/- 0,81). Cuando comparamos las medias de pérdida ósea me-sial y distal entre los tres grupos, no se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (mesial p=0,062, distal p=0,067). En conclusión, no se obser-varon diferencias significativas en la pérdida ósea crestal ni en la supervivencia de los implantes cortos entre los 3 tiempos estudiados de aplicación de car-ga inmediata. Por ello, utilizar cualquiera de los tres protocolos puede ser adecuado, mientras se realice un correcto análisis de la situación clínica de cada paciente (AU)

Extra-short implants are increasingly used in daily clinical practice. The use of these implants with immediate loading poses an added challenge. Classically it has been postulated that immediate loading should be performed 24 hrs after surgery. In the following case series, we analyze different times of immediate loading and their possible repercussions. We retrospectively collected data on cases of extra-short implants (5.5 and 6.5 mm) in which immediate loading was performed in posterior sectors. The implant was the unit of analysis for descriptive statistics in terms of location, implant dimensions, and radiographic measurements. The patient was the unit of measurement for the analysis of age, sex and medical history. The main variable studied was the survival of immediately loaded extra-short implants in three specific time periods: 24 hrs, 48 hrs and 7 days. Secondary variables studied were crestal bone stability in general and in the three loading periods mentioned above, prosthetic complications and prosthesis survival. Seventy-four patients were recruited and 146 implants that met the inclusion criteria were inserted. All implants were loaded by immediate loading in three specific time periods: 24 hrs (40 implants), 48 hrs (42 implants) and 7 days (42 implants). All implants were splinted to other implants generating bridges of two or more units, with different lengths. In the 24-hr immediate loading group the mean distal bone loss of all implants was 0.21 mm (+/- 0.84) and the mean mesial bone loss in this group was 0.33 mm (+/- 0.53). In the 48-hr immediate loading group, the mean distal bone loss for all implants was 0.20 mm (+/- 0.82) and the mean mesial bone loss was 0,22 mm (+/- 0,81). In the 7-day loading group, the mesial bone loss of the group was 0.28 mm (+/- 0.51) and the mean distal bone loss was 0.17 mm (+/- 0.81). When we compared the mean mesial and distal bone loss between the three groups there were no statistically significant differences (mesial p=0.062, distal p=0.067). In conclusion, no significant differences were observed in crestal bone loss or in the survival of short implants between the 3 immediate load application times studied. Therefore, using any of the three protocols can be appropriate, as long as a correct analysis of the clinical situation of each patient is performed (AU)

Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions. METHODS: A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed. RESULTS: Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation. CONCLUSION: PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.

Survival of dental implants in oncology patients versus non-oncology patients: a 5-year retrospective study

Abstract Patients with a history of cancer are increasingly common in the dental office. Treating cancer patients requires a multidisciplinary team, which should include the dentist, in order to control the complications that occur in the oral cavity and also to recover the patient undergoing treatment in any of its types: surgical, medical, radiotherapeutic, or its possible combinations. Dental implants can be a safe and predictable treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of this paper is to describe in retrospect the success rate of osseointegrated implants in oncology and non-oncology patients placed by the Master of Dentistry in Oncology and Immunocompromised Patients, as well as the Master of Medicine, Surgery and Oral Implantology of the University of Barcelona Dental Hospital, between July 2011 and March 2016. 466 patients were reviewed, with a total of 1405 implants placed, considering the oncological history of the patients and the implant success rate. The total success rate in the concerned period was 96.65%. When comparing cancer patients with healthy ones, the success rate has been 93.02% in the first case, and 97.16% in the latter. According to the literature review, our results encourage implant placement in cancer patients, it is important to recognize that this is an analysis of a complex care pathway with a large number of confounding variables. However, the findings should not be considered as generalizable.

Resumo Pacientes com histórico de câncer são cada vez mais comuns no consultório odontológico. O tratamento de pacientes com câncer requer uma equipe multidisciplinar, que deve incluir o dentista, a fim de controlar as complicações que ocorrem na cavidade oral e também para tratar o paciente com qualquer uma das modalidades de tratamento: cirúrgica, médica, radioterápica ou suas possíveis combinações. Os implantes dentários podem ser uma opção de tratamento segura e previsível para reabilitação protética. O objetivo deste artigo é propor um estudo retrospectivo sobre a taxa de sucesso de implantes osseointegrados em pacientes oncológicos e não oncológicos atendidos no Mestrado em Odontologia em Pacientes Oncológicos e Imunodeprimidos, bem como no Mestrado em Medicina, Cirurgia e Implantodontia Oral do Hospital Odontológico da Universidade de Barcelona, entre julho de 2011 e março de 2016. Foram revisados 466 pacientes, com um total de 1405 implantes instalados, considerando o histórico oncológico dos pacientes e a taxa de sucesso do implante. Resultados: A taxa de sucesso total no período em questão foi de 96,65%. Na comparação entre pacientes com câncer e saudáveis, a taxa de sucesso foi de 93,02% no primeiro caso e 97,16% no segundo. Conclusão: De acordo com a revisão da literatura, nossos resultados encorajam a colocação de implantes em pacientes com câncer, é importante reconhecer que esta é uma análise complexa que requer cuidado devido ao grande número de variáveis. No entanto, os resultados não devem ser considerados de forma generalizada.

Relationship between Radiographic Misfit and Clinical Outcomes in Immediately Loaded Complete-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses in Edentulous Patients.

PURPOSE: To examine if an uncorrected radiographically detected immediate postoperative misfit (implant level or abutment level) in immediately loaded conversion prosthesis plays a significant role in early implant or prosthesis failure. In addition, clinical characteristics related to type of arch, implant position, type of implant, implant orientation, type of connection, and type of surgery were analyzed relative to their relationship to early implant or prosthesis failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immediate postoperative and subsequent follow-up panoramic radiographs of 425 arches with immediately loaded complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were screened in a retrospective analysis. Implants with misfit and nonmisfit within a given arch were summarized separately with respect to each clinical characteristic and the difference between misfit and nonmisfit groups was tested using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with a patient-specific random intercept. A p-value <0.05 was determined to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 2025 implants from 311 patients were identified in the 425 arches that were screened for radiographic misfit. A total of 48 implants with misfit were found within 33 arches (23 patients) for a 2.4% prevalence rate. Among the misfit implants, two failures were documented during the healing phase for an early implant survival rate of 95.8%. Five conversion prostheses with misfit fractured during the healing phase for early prosthesis survival rate of 84.8%. None of the clinical variables analyzed were significantly associated with the misfit status (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this retrospective study showed that misfit in immediately loaded complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses may not play a detrimental role in the implant survival but may affect survival of the conversion prostheses.

Two to six-year disease resolution and marginal bone stability rates of a modified resective-implantoplasty therapy in 32 peri-implantitis cases.

BACKGROUND: Different nonsurgical, antibacterial, surgical, and regenerative approaches to treat peri-implantitis have been proposed, but there is no an actual "gold" standard treatment showing the most favorable results to counteract peri-implantitis effects. PURPOSE: To evaluate radiographically and clinically the disease resolution and peri-implant marginal bone stability rates of peri-implantitis cases treated through a combined resective-implantoplasty therapy in a moderate to long-term period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated through the same protocol applying a combined resective-implantoplasty therapy with minimum 2-year follow-up were screened. Eligible patients were contacted and asked to undergo clinical and radiologic examination. Progressive marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, suppuration, implant mobility, and implant fracture were considered to establish the disease resolution rate and peri-implant bone stability of the treated implants. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with 32 treated implants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Over the 2 to 6-year follow-up, (mean time: 3.4 ± 1.5 years), the disease resolution rate was 83% (patient level) and 87% (implant level). Four implants (13%) were lost or removed due to continuous MBL and osseointegration failure. At follow-up, peri-implant marginal bone remained stable with no further bone loss in 87% of the treated implants. BOP was absent in 89.3% (implant level), suppuration was resolved in all cases, and no pain or implant fracture was reported. CONCLUSION: Implantoplasty treated cases showed high disease resolution rate and peri-implant marginal bone stability. This surgical antibiofilm strategy can counteract peri-implantitis progression providing an adequate environment for implant function and longevity over a moderate to long-term period.

Prospective longitudinal comparison study of surgical therapies for peri-implantitis: 3-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare different surgical therapies to treat peri-implantitis. METHODS: Twenty-three patients presenting one implant affected by peri-implantitis were divided into three groups: (i) open flap debridement (OFD) and citric acid decontamination (CAD); (ii) OFD, CAD and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG); (iii) OFD, CAD and implantoplasty. Modified plaque index (MPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), keratinized mucosa (KM) width, probing depth (PD), bleeding or suppuration on probing (B/SOP), and radiographic crestal bone level were registered 1(T1), 2(T2) and 3(T3) years after treatment. RESULTS: In Group 1 there was a significant improvement in MPI from baseline to T1, and a significant reduction in PD over time. In Group 2, none of the assessed clinical parameters showed any statistically significant variation over time. In Group 3, there was a significant decrease in PD and B/SOP over time. When comparing the 3 Groups, KM was significanlty greater in Group 2 vs. Group 1 and Group 3 at T1 and T2, and in Group 2 vs. Group 3 at T3. CONCLUSION: All therapies were successful in the management of peri-implantitis; however, SCTG maintained the greatest KM width. Surgical therapies combined with mechanical and chemical decontamination contributed to peri-implant tissue health.

Does the instrument used for the implant site preparation influence the bone-implant interface? A systematic review of clinical and animal studies.

This systematic review evaluates the influence of the instrument used for the implant site preparation on the bone-implant interface. Any type of clinical or animal study were searched for in MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and SciVerse Scopus. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts of articles and the full-text of potentially eligible studies. Comparisons of bone to implant contact and crestal bone loss were estimated using pairwise meta-analysis. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The instruments identified in the articles were conventional drills (CDs), osteotome (OT), piezoelectric device (PD), Er:YAG LASER (LS) and osseodensification drills (ODs). The meta-analysis on bone to implant contact suggested no difference between CDs and other techniques and the meta-analysis on crestal bone loss suggested no difference between CDs and PD. The survival of implants in sites prepared with CDs vs. OT or PD presented no significant differences. The use of PD provided lower inflammatory response and earlier bone formation when compared to CDs. ODs provided significant biomechanical improvement in comparison to CDs. LS did not provide any relevant improvement in comparison to CDs or PD. The influence of the instrument used for implant site preparation depended on the property evaluated.

Impact of bisphosphonate therapy on dental implant outcomes: An overview of systematic review evidence.

The purpose of this overview was to assess the methods, quality, and outcomes of systematic reviews conducted to evaluate the impact of bisphosphonates on dental implants and the risk of developing bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after dental implant surgery. An electronic search without date or language restriction was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and LILACS databases (to January 2018). Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews that evaluated the impact of bisphosphonates on implant outcomes. The quality assessment of the included reviews was done using AMSTAR 2 guidelines. The protocol of this overview was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018089617). The search and selection process yielded seven reviews, published between 2009 and 2017. None of the systematic reviews included in this study obtained the maximum score in the quality assessment. The scientific evidence available demonstrates that patients with a history of bisphosphonate use do not present a higher risk of dental implant failure or marginal bone loss compared to patients who have not used bisphosphonates. The literature also suggests that patients who undergo surgical trauma during the installation of dental implants may be more susceptible to bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Matrix metalloproteinases gene polymorphism haplotype is a risk factor to implant loss: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants consist in the treatment of choice to replace tooth loss. The knowledge that implant loss tends to cluster in subsets of individuals may indicate that host response is influenced by genetic factors. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are enzymes that contribute to degradation and removal of collagen from extracellular matrix. PURPOSE: This case-control study aimed to investigate the haplotypic combination of MMP polymorphism (rs1144393, rs1799750, rs3025058, and rs11225395) and implant loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred nonsmokers subjects were matched by gender, age, implant number and position and divided in control group, 100 patients with one or more healthy implants, and test group, and 100 patients with one or more implant failures. Genomic DNA was extracted from saliva and genotypes were obtained by PCR-RFLP. RESULTS: A significant association of rs1799750 (MMP-1) and rs11225395 (MMP-8) polymorphism on early implant loss was demonstrated (P ≤ 0.001). Global haplotype analysis indicated a significant difference between both groups (P < 0.0001). Haplotype T-A-GG-5A-C had a statistically significant risk effect, while haplotype C-A-G-6A-C andT-G-2G-5A-C had a protective effect in implant loss. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that MMPs haplotype are a risk factor to early implant loss.

One-year clinical outcomes of locking taper Equator attachments retaining mandibular overdentures to narrow diameter implants.

BACKGROUND: Narrow diameter implants (NDI) are recommended to retain mandibular overdentures (MOs) in cases of limited bone thickness. It is necessary to evaluate the clinical behavior of NDI as MO retainers connected to a new screwless locking taper abutments, their predictability and maintenance problems. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the peri-implant tissue behavior around NDI and the performance of locking taper stud abutments as MO retainers. METHODOLOGY: Thirty patients (average age of 67.5 years) received 2 NDI implants (2.9 × 10 mm) loaded after 12 weeks using Equator stud attachments. The plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were monitored during osseointegration at 0, 4, 8, and 12 weeks and postloading at 24, 48, and 60 weeks. The marginal bone level (MBL) and bone level changes (BLC) were determined at baseline and 60 weeks. RESULTS: The cumulative success rate was 83.3%. The PI oscillated in the first 24 weeks and decreased from 48 weeks onward, while the CI score showed significantly higher values at week 8 (22%). The GI also peaked at week 8 (18.6%) and decreased from week 12 onward. The PD decreased gradually over time, but no significant differences were found between weeks 8 and 12. The ISQ decreased significantly between 0 and 12 weeks. After MO loading, the ISQ values increased linearly and significantly between 12 and 24, 24 and 48, and 48 and 60 weeks and reached values similar to the primary stability after 60 weeks [56.1(42.0-65.3)]. No significant MBL was observed at 60 weeks, with an average BLC of -0.06 ± 0.64 mm. CONCLUSION: NDI connected to locking taper Equator attachments showed a stable clinical behavior as an MO retainer for edentulous patients with clinical mandibular atrophy.

Comparison between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial focusing on implant stability changes during early healing.

BACKGROUND: Companies affirm that tapered implants show adequate initial stability, while their installation in the lower arch is uncommon in clinical practice. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of tapered and cylindrical implants and to study their effect on bone site characteristics and peri-implant health during healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The implant site dimensions were assessed by linear measurements using CBCT prior to the installation of 40 implants in the posterior mandible (20 tapered and 20 cylindrical). The bone type was registered during drilling via the surgeon's tactile perception, following the classification of Lekholm and Zarb. Primary stability (PS) was determined by the insertion torque (IT) and the implant stability quotient (ISQ). Secondary stability (SS) and the peri-implant health was monitored for 3 months through the visible plaque index (VPI), the peri-implant inflammation (PI), the probing depth index (PDI), and the gingival bleeding index (GBI). Significant differences were investigated with t-tests for independent samples, chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test. Pearson's correlation test was used to investigate the relationship between the bone site characteristics and PS (IT and ISQ), as well as the relationships between IT and ISQ for each implant type. RESULTS: Tapered and cylindrical implants showed no significant differences for any outcome variable (P > .05). A significant decrease in ISQ was observed after 7 days of healing (P = .0002), followed by a gradual increase beginning at 21 days (P = .0010) until the last follow-up time at 90 days (P = .0319). The cortical height was correlated with IT; while medullary bone dimensions were correlated with the PS as evidenced by the ISQ values. The insertion torque was significantly correlated with the PS only for the cylindrical dental implants. CONCLUSIONS: Tapered and cylindrical implants have similar biological behavior during the healing process. Bone site characteristics can influence insertion torque and implant stability.

Incorporation and Remodeling of Bone Block Allografts in the Maxillary Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe alveolar atrophy often presents a challenge for the implant surgery. The significant lack of bone in the alveolar ridges may compromise the final restorations both from the aesthetic and functional standpoints. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the behavior of bone block allografts for the maxillary augmentation and to investigate its incorporation, remodeling, and implant survival rates in two different healing time points. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients (52 female/14 male, mean age: 57.95 ± 9.06 years old), presenting 113 atrophic alveolar ridges underwent maxillary augmentation with fresh-frozen allogeneic bone blocks from tibia. Patients were randomly assigned in two groups: Group 1-patients who would wait 4 months for implant placement after grafting, and Group 2-patients who would wait 6 months. Events of infection, suture dehiscence or mucosal perforation were recorded. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were compared volumetrically between the time of the grafting surgery and reentry procedure after incorporation. Biopsies were collected and subjected to histological, histomorphometric and immunehistochemical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 305 implants were placed in the reconstructed sites. The mean resorption rate in Group 1 (13.98% ± 5.59) was significantly lower than Group 2 (31.52% ± 6.31). The amount of calcified tissue, newly formed bone and remaining graft particles demonstrated no difference between groups. The samples showed evident immunolabeling for the podoplanin protein in both groups. The implants cumulative survival rate was 94.76%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study indicate that there is a significant difference regarding the resorption of the grafts when waiting 4 or 6 months before placing the implants, even though no difference was found in the histological, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical features. Both 4-month and 6-months healing times are suitable for the implant placement.

Parameters Associated with Marginal Bone Loss around Implant after Prosthetic Loading

Abstract This study evaluated retrospectively the association among occlusal, periodontal and implant-prosthetic parameters and marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants and survival rate at 5.7 ±3.2 years of follow-up after prosthetic loading. Eighty-two patients received 164 external hexagon implants. After the standard healing period (3 to 6 months), the implants were restored with single-tooth or up to three splinted crowns. All patients were followed according to a strict maintenance program with regular recalls and clinically evaluated by a calibrated examiner. The MBL measurements taken from standardized radiographs made at permanent crown placement (baseline) and after the last evaluation were calculated considering occlusal, periodontal and implant-prosthetic parameters. Veneer fractures and abutment loosening were not considered failure. Two implants failed during the follow-up period, resulting in a survival rate of 98.8%. Cox regression analyses showed MBL associated with non-working side contacts (p=0.047), inadequate anterior guidance (p=0.001), lateral group guidance involving teeth and implants (p=0.015), periimplant plaque index (p=0.035), prosthetic design (p=0.030) and retention (p=0.006). Inadequate occlusal pattern guide, presence of visible plaque, and cemented and splinted implant-supported restoration were associated with greater MBL around the implant.

Resumo Este estudo avaliou retrospectivamente a associação entre os parâmetros oclusais, periodontais e implante-protéticos e perda óssea marginal (POM) ao redor de implantes e taxa de sobrevivência, em 5,7 ± 3,2 anos de acompanhamento após o carregamento protético. Oitenta e dois pacientes receberam um total de 164 implantes com hexágono externo. Após o período de cicatrização (3 à 6 meses), os implantes foram restaurados com coroa unitária ou até três coroas ferulizadas. Todos os pacientes seguiram um programa de manutenção rigoroso, com consultas regulares e avaliações clinicas realizadas por um examinador calibrado. As medições de POM obtidas de radiografias padronizadas realizadas na colocação da coroa permanente (baseline) e após a última avaliação foram calculadas considerando os parâmetros oclusais, periodontais e àqueles relacionados ao implante e prótese. Fratura na cerâmica de cobertura e afrouxamento do pilar não foram considerados falhas. Dois implantes falharam durante o período de acompanhamento, resultando em uma taxa de sobrevivência de 98,8%.A análise de regressão de Cox mostrou POM associado com contatos no lado de balanceio (p= 0,047), inadequada guia anterior (p=0,001), guia lateral em grupo envolvendo dentes e implantes (p=0,015), índice de placa visível em torno do implante (p=0,035), tipo de prótese (p= 0,030) e retenção (p=0,006). Guia de padrão oclusal inadequado, presença de placa visível e restaurações implanto-suportadas cimentadas e ferulizadas resultaram em maior POM ao redor do implante.

Survival rate of osseointegrated implants in atrophic maxillae grafted with calvarial bone: a retrospective study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical survival rate of osseointegrated implants placed in the atrophic maxilla that has been reconstructed by means of autogenous bone grafts harvested from a cranial calvarial site. Further, we sought to analyse the level of peri-implant bone after prosthetic rehabilitation and to determine subjective patient satisfaction with the treatment performed. This study conformed to the STROBE guidelines regarding retrospective studies. Twenty-five patients who had received osseointegrated implants with late loading in the reconstructed atrophic maxilla were included in the study. The survival rate and level of peri-implant bone loss were evaluated. A questionnaire related to the surgical and prosthetic procedures was completed. The observed implant survival rate was 92.35%. The mean bone loss recorded was 1.76mm in the maxilla and 1.54mm in the mandible. The results of the questionnaire indicated a high level of patient satisfaction, little surgical discomfort, and that the patients would recommend the procedure and would undergo the treatment again. From the results obtained, it is concluded that the cranial calvarial site is an excellent donor area; calvarial grafts provided stability and maintenance of bone volume over the course of up to 11 years.

Lactotransferrin Gene (LTF) Polymorphisms and Dental Implant Loss: A Case-Control Association Study.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants have been widely used to replace missing teeth, accomplishing aesthetics and function. Due to its large use worldwide, the small percentage of implant loss becomes significant in number of cases. Lactotransferrin (LTF) is a pleiotropic protein, expressed in various body tissues and fluids, which modulates the host immune-inflammatory response and bone metabolism, and might be involved in dental implant osseointegration. Recently, a few studies have been investigating genetic aspects underlying dental implant failure. PURPOSE: This case-control study aimed to investigate the association of genetic markers (tag SNPs) in LTF gene and clinical parameters with dental implant loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 278 patients, both sexes, mean age 51 years old, divided into 184 without and 94 with implant loss, were genotyped for sixteen tag SNPs, representative of the whole LTF gene. Also, clinical oral and systemic parameters were analyzed. Univariate and Multivariate Logistic Regression model were used to analyze the results (p < .05). RESULTS: No association was found between the tag SNPs and implant loss in the study population. Clinical association was found with medical treatment, hormonal reposition, edentulism, number of placed implants, plaque, calculus, and mobility. CONCLUSION: Clinical variables, but not LTF gene polymorphisms, were associated with implant loss.

Avaliação das taxas de sucesso e sobrevivência de 497 implantes há cinco anos ou mais em função – estudo retrospectivo com 139 pacientes / Success and survival rates of 497 implants with at least 5 years of function – a retrospective study with 139 patients

Objetivo: avaliar as taxas de sucesso e sobrevivência de implantes há cinco anos ou mais em função. Material e métodos: pacientes tratados com implantes de titânio (Implacil De Bortoli, São Paulo, Brasil) na Fundecto (USP), no período de 1998 a 2008 foram incluídos neste estudo. Os implantes foram classificados individualmente, de acordo com um rigoroso critério de sucesso. Também foram levados em consideração o formato e o tipo de plataforma dos implantes. Resultados: a taxa de sobrevivência dos implantes tipo hexágono externo (n=357) e interno (n=140) foi de 99,4% e 99,3%, respectivamente. Já com relação aos implantes cônicos (n=88) e cilíndricos (n=409), a taxa de sobrevivência foi de 100% e 99,3%, respectivamente. A taxa de sucesso para implantes tipo hexágono externo e interno foi de 90,8% e 93,6%, respectivamente. Implantes cônicos obtiveram 90,9%, enquanto que implantes cilíndricos apresentaram 91,7% de taxa de sucesso. Conclusão: de acordo com o presente estudo, a taxa geral de sobrevivência dos implantes foi de 99,4%, enquanto a taxa de sucesso foi de 91,5%.

Objective: to assess success and survival rates from implants in function for five or more years. Material and methods: patients treated with osseointegrated implants (Implacil De Bortoli, Sao Paulo, Brazil) at Fundecto (USP), from 1998 to 2008, were included in this study. Implants were individually classified using strict success criteria. For further analysis, data were obtained regarding implant’s platform and implant’s macro design. Results: survival rates for external (n=357) and internal hexagon implants (n=140) were 99,4% and 99,3%, respectively. Regarding tapered (n=88) and cylindrical implants (n=409), survival rates were 100% and 99,3%, respectively. Success rates for external and internal hexagon implants were 90,8% and 93,6%. Tapered implants had 90,9% and cylindrical implants presented 91,7% of success rates. Conclusion: according to this retrospective study, the overall survival rate was 99,4% and the overall success rate was 91,5%.

Estudos longitudinais e sucesso na implantodontia / Longitudinal studies and success rates in implant dentistry: a literature review

Atualmente, observamos maior procura pelos tratamentos através dos implantes osseointegráveis para a reabilitação dos dentes perdidos. Isto deve-se a uma crescente conscientização dos pacientes em relação ao sucesso e aos benefícios dos implantes. Com isso, torna-se fundamental a busca por técnicas, materiais e protocolos que forneçam maior segurança e previsibilidade aos tratamentos, bem como a necessidade da realização de mais estudos longitudinais. O primeiro estudo avaliando os implantes osseointegráveis foi publicado em 1981 e, desde então, inúmeros outros trabalhos foram realizados. Contudo, estudos longitudinais que realizaram um acompanhamento a longo prazo ainda são escassos. Desta forma, o objetivo do presente trabalho foi realizar, através de uma revisão da literatura, a busca de estudos longitudinais avaliando o desempenho clínico dos implantes, bem como os parâmetros e as escalas de sucesso utilizados por eles.

Nowadays, there is an increasing demand for dental implant treatment to replace lost teeth. This can be due to great patient awareness about the related success and benefits of this therapy. Thus, the use of well-established materials, techniques, and protocols for predictable outcomes, as well as new longitudinal studies, is mandatory. The first study on osseointegrated implants was published in 1981 and since then several papers were presented. However, long-term studies are scarce. In this way, the aim of this paper is to review longitudinal studies regarding the long-term performance of dental implants along with its scales and parameters used to define success levels.

Influencia del diámetro y longitud de implantes en la pérdida tardía de implantes dentales / Influence of diameter and length of implant on late dental implant failure

El objetivo de esta investigación fue describir la influencia del diámetro y largo de los implantes en la pérdida tardía del implante. Se diseñó un estudio retrospectivo para estudiar 375 pacientes que habían sido sometidos a rehabilitación oral sobre implantes durante un periodo de 11 años; se incluyeron en el estudio todos aquellos documentos debidamente completados y con estudios radiográficos preoperatorios, posterior a la instalación del implante y posterior a la instalación de la prótesis. Los implantes fueron clasificados de acuerdo al diámetro como estrecho, regular y ancho y de acuerdo al largo como corto, medio y largo; el análisis de datos fue realizado con la prueba Chi Cuadrado con valor de p<0,05. Del total de 939 implantes y se identificó la pérdida de 55 implantes posterior a la etapa protésica (5,8 por ciento). En base a la pérdida, no se logró establecer ninguna relación estadísticamente significativa con el diámetro del dispositivo (p=0,475) y tampoco con el largo del implante (p=0,064). Podemos concluir que el largo y el diámetro de implantes dentales no influyen en la pérdida tardía del mismo.

The aim of this research was to describe the influence of diameter and length of dental implant related to late implant faliure. In a retrospective study was evaluated 375 patients in a 11 year period; were inclued the complet medical record with image study in the preoperative period, posteriorly to implant installation and to prosthesis installation. The implant was classified according to diameter in narrow, regular and wide, and according to length as short, regular and long. The statistical analysis was realized with Chi-Squaare test with p value <0.05. We studied 939 implants and observed 55 implant failure posteriorly to prosthesis phases (5.8 percent). No statistical relation with diameter (p=0.475) or lenght (p=0.064) was observed. We conclude that the length and diameter of dental implant is not an influence for late failure of the implant.

Evaluación clínico-radiográfica del éxito y supervivencia de implantes dentales con tratamiento de superficie e implantes con superficie torneada / Clinical-radiographic success and survival with implants dental surface treatment and surface turned

El objetivo principal del estudio fue evaluar la influencia del tratamiento de superficie del implante en el éxito y supervivencia de estos. Se evaluaron 24 pacientes que presentaban un total de 74 implantes dentales oseointegrados, 19 con superficie torneada y 55 superficie RBM® (Lifecore® Biomedical, Chaska, Minn). Los resultados obtenidos fueron una tasa de supervivencia de 98.18% para los implantes de superficie RBM®, 100% para los de superficie lisa y para el total de implantes 98.65%. La tasa de éxito para los implantes de superficie lisa fue 63.16%, para los de superficie RBM® 70.91% y para el total de implantes 68.92%; sin encontrar diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre estas. La pérdida ósea fue 1.82mm para los implantes de superficie torneada y 1.34mm para los de superficie RBM®, encontrándose esta diferencia estadísticamente significativa. Los resultados obtenidos indican que los implantes con superficie RBM® a comparación de los implantes con superficie torneada, presentan ventajas con respecto a la pérdida ósea marginal. También se observó que la variable que mayor influencia ejerce sobre la pérdida ósea marginal y el éxito del implante es el momento de la carga.

The principal aim of our study was to evaluate the survival and success rate of implants with treated surface (RBM®) and machined surface implants. 24 patients treated with 74 dental implants were evaluated. 19 machined surface implants and 55 RBM® surface implants (Lifecore® Biomedical, Chaska, Minn). The results were a survival rate of 98.18 % for RBM® implants, 100% for machined or smooth surface and 98.65 % and for the whole of implants. The success rate for smooth implants was 63.16% for RBM® implants was 70.91% and for the whole of implants was 68.92%. These results were not significantly different. However, peri-implant bone loss was significantly different between smooth implants (1.82mm) and RBM® implants 1.34. The results indicate that implants RBM present advantages with regard to the marginal bone loss. Also was observed that the load time is the variable that major influence has on the marginal bone loss and the implant success.