Osteogenic inducer sustained-release system promotes the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts on titanium surface.

OBJECTIVE: Biomaterial can be locally applied to promote the osseointegration of dental implants. This study aimed to fabricate an osteogenic inducer (OI) sustained-release system and to evaluate its effects on the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts on titanium surfaces. METHODS: First of all, different contents of OI solution were added to the poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) gel individually to investigate the best physical properties and drug-release rate. Moreover, osteoblasts were isolated from the calvaria of two-month-old New Zealand rabbits through sequential enzymatic digestion. Osteoblasts were seeded onto the surface of Ti disks (control group), Ti coated with PLGA gel (PLGA group), and Ti coated with the OI sustained-release system (PLGA+OI group). Cell adhesion was observed by scanning electron microscopy. Cell proliferation was analyzed by cell counting kit-8. Cell differentiation was tested by alizarin red staining, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and osteogenic-related gene expression. RESULTS: The OI sustained-release system contained 15% OI solution had appropriate physical properties and drug-release rate. The osteoblasts in the PLGA+OI group were in a typical spindle shape with a considerable number indicating the promotion of adhesion and proliferation. The expression of early and late stage osteoblast differentiation genes in the PLGA+OI group were significantly higher than that of the control group and PLGA group at each time point. The PLGA group showed accelerated adhesion and differentiation but reduced proliferation compared with the control. CONCLUSION: The OI sustained-release system promotes the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts on titanium surfaces. This system is a cost-effective osteoconductive biomaterial that might be promising for use in dental implantation.

Cost-effectiveness of implant-supported dental prosthesis compared to conventional dental prosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives for rehabilitation treatment of mandibular edentulism in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health System (implant-supported total dental prosthesis versus conventional total dental prosthesis). METHODS: A Markov model was developed to capture long-term clinical and economic outcomes. The model's population was comprised of a hypothetical cohort of 1,000,000 patients, aged 55 years, with total mandibular edentulism and without medical contraindications for performing surgical procedures. The adopted analysis perspective was that of the Brazilian Unified Health System. Based on the proposed model, we calculated cost - in BRL, and effectiveness - measured by quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY). The time horizon of the analysis was 20 years. RESULTS: Considering a 5% discount in costs and effects, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of implant-supported total dental prostheses compared to conventional total dental prosthesis (BRL 464.22/QAPY) was lower than the willingness to pay threshold adopted in the model (BRL 3,050.00/QAPY). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this economic analysis showed that the rehabilitation of mandibular edentulous patients by implant-supported total prosthesis is very cost-effective when compared to conventional complete prosthesis, considering the cost-effectiveness limits employed.

Cost-effectiveness of implant-supported dental prosthesis compared to conventional dental prosthesis / Custo-efetividade da prótese implanto-suportada comparada à prótese total convencional

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives for rehabilitation treatment of mandibular edentulism in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health System (implant-supported total dental prosthesis versus conventional total dental prosthesis). METHODS A Markov model was developed to capture long-term clinical and economic outcomes. The model's population was comprised of a hypothetical cohort of 1,000,000 patients, aged 55 years, with total mandibular edentulism and without medical contraindications for performing surgical procedures. The adopted analysis perspective was that of the Brazilian Unified Health System. Based on the proposed model, we calculated cost - in BRL, and effectiveness - measured by quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY). The time horizon of the analysis was 20 years. RESULTS Considering a 5% discount in costs and effects, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of implant-supported total dental prostheses compared to conventional total dental prosthesis (BRL 464.22/QAPY) was lower than the willingness to pay threshold adopted in the model (BRL 3,050.00/QAPY). CONCLUSIONS The results of this economic analysis showed that the rehabilitation of mandibular edentulous patients by implant-supported total prosthesis is very cost-effective when compared to conventional complete prosthesis, considering the cost-effectiveness limits employed.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Conduzir uma análise de custo-efetividade das alternativas para tratamento reabilitador do edentulismo mandibular no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde (prótese total implanto-suportada e prótese total convencional). MÉTODOS Foi desenvolvido um modelo de Markov para captar os resultados clínicos e econômicos de longo prazo. A população do modelo consistiu em uma coorte hipotética de 1.000.000 pacientes, com 55 anos, desdentados totais mandibulares e sem contraindicações médicas para a realização de procedimentos cirúrgicos. A perspectiva de análise adotada foi a do Sistema Único de Saúde. Com base no modelo proposto, calculamos o custo (em reais) e a efetividade, medida pelo ano de prótese ajustado à qualidade (QAPY). O horizonte temporal da análise foi de 20 anos. RESULTADOS Considerando o desconto de 5% nos custos e efeitos, a razão de custo-efetividade incremental da prótese total implanto-suportada em relação à prótese total convencional (R$ 464,22/QAPY) foi menor que o limiar de disposição a pagar adotado no modelo (R$ 3.050,00/QAPY). CONCLUSÕES Os resultados desta análise econômica mostraram que a reabilitação de edêntulos mandibulares por meio da prótese total implanto-suportada é muito custo-efetiva em comparação à prótese total convencional, de acordo com os limites de custo-efetividade empregados.

Knowledge and Awareness Regarding Dental Implants among Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Center.

INTRODUCTION: Loss of natural teeth is a debilitating and irreversible process, which leads to functional, cosmetic and psychological morbidities. Dental implant serves as one of the options of tooth replacement, which are stronger, functionally effective and more durable. However, public awareness regarding it has been found to be low in Asian countries. This study was designed to know the status of knowledge and awareness of dental implant. METHODS: Seventy nine patients visiting dental department of Patan Academy of Health Sciences were included in this study through non-probability sampling. Data on knowledge and awareness regarding dental implants were collected through a survey after ethical approval from Institutional Review committee of Patan Academy of Health Sciences. Data entry was done in Epidata and analyzed with the help of Statistical Package of Social Sciences version 20. RESULTS: Total 33 (41.8%) of study populations choose dental implant as alternative for replacing teeth, 22 (30.4%) choose fixed dental prosthesis. 36 (45.6%) and 32 (40.5%) of population stated that long treatment time and high cost respectively as the disadvantages of dental implants. Only 12 (15.2%) were aware that dental implants are anchored in jaw bone. The source of information about dental implants was dentists for 48 (60.8%) of the patients followed by friends, media and medical doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that awareness of patients attending tertiary care center of Kathmandu valley is low. Hence, there is a need of organizing dental education programs to create awareness about dental implants.

Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of implants (Implant), insurance fixed dental prosthesis (IFDP) and private fixed dental prosthesis (PFDP) for a single intermediate missing tooth in the molar region to calculate the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). METHODS: The Markov model for cost-effectiveness analysis of the Implant, IFDP and PFDP was carried over maximum 30 years. The starting age for prosthetic treatment was decided to be 50 years. The General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) was used for the indicator of effectiveness as an oral health QOL value. The GOHAI value was collected from patients who visited the Department of Oral Implantology of Osaka Dental University between September 2014 and March 2016. In addition, the Tornado diagram was drawn and Monte-Carlo simulations made for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: From the analysis of survey of QOL of each stage and treatment, the selection of an Implant led to a higher QOL value than FDP. However, the estimated 30-year cost for IFDP was lower than Implant. It also became evident that PFDP had an extended dominated condition compared with IFDP and Implants. The ICER on the Implant versus IFDP was €1423.00. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a better of QOL value can be obtained from an Implant than from IFDP or PFDP. An evaluation form using an indexed scale for oral health-related aspects needs to be developed that is also consistent as an indicator of effect.

Comparison of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of the mandible: a prospective randomized clinical study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 patients who required open reduction of mandibular angle fracture were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I comprised of patients treated with two miniplates and those in group II were treated with single non-compression miniplate. The parameters of assessment were malocclusion, surgical site infection, need for implant removal, duration of surgery, inter-incisal mouth opening and cost of implants used, in both the groups. Statistical analysis was carried out to compare all the parameters. RESULTS: Out of 14 patients in group II, inadequate reduction was noticed in three patients, whereas screw loosening had occurred in two cases. Screw loosening was always associated with chronic infection. In these cases, hardware removal was deemed necessary. Plate bending was observed in two cases resulting in malocclusion and difficulty in eating. Non-union of fracture occurred in one patient treated in group II. In group I, no plate bending, screw loosening, surgical site infection, non-union or malocclusion was observed. No patient had to undergo implant removal in group I. CONCLUSION: In the management of unfavourable mandibular angle fracture, two miniplates must be preferred over the use of single miniplate as using two miniplates results in better results with minimal complications.

Mini-Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis alongside a Randomized Trial.

Mandibular overdentures retained by 2 conventional implants have been considered the standard of care for complete edentulism, according to the McGill and York consensuses. However, many patients refuse this treatment modality due to the associated costs and postsurgical discomfort. Mini-implants have the chance to overcome these limitations due to their potentially lower costs and a relatively uncomplicated surgical technique. This study compared treatment costs and incremental cost-effectiveness following the insertion of mini-implants (2 or 4) or 2 standard-size implants for the retention of mandibular overdentures, by means of a randomized clinical trial. In total, 120 edentulous participants (mean age 59.5 ± 8.5 y) were randomly allocated into 3 groups according to treatment received: 4 mini-implants (group 1), 2 mini-implants (group 2), or 2 standard implants (group 3). Treatment costs and outcomes (Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous [OHIP-EDENT] and satisfaction with the dentures) were evaluated after 6 mo. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each intervention in terms of cost per 1-point change in patient outcomes. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed considering a 95% confidence interval variation in cost and outcome parameters, represented in tornado diagrams. Overall treatment cost was the lowest for group 2 (average cost: US$318.08), followed by group 1 (US$510.75) and group 3 (US$566.13). Groups did not differ in terms of the length of unscheduled appointments and time spent by participants. In summary, our findings indicate that mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants are less costly compared to 2-implant overdentures. Despite the lower costs of overdentures retained by 2 mini-implants, those retained by 4 mini-implants showed further improvement in patient-reported outcomes and reduced costs compared to standard implants ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683). Knowledge Transfer Statement: This report shows that mini-implant retained overdentures are less costly than overdenture treatment on 2 standard-sized implants. Treatment with 2 mini-implants is an effective procedure to substantially save resources, whereas treatment with 4 mini-implants provides better results from a patient perspective combined with slightly reduced costs compared to the treatment with 2 standard implants. Therefore, mini-implant overdentures may be effective and more accessible than overdentures on 2 standard-size implants for those with limited incomes.

Costs and clinical outcomes of implant placement during ablative surgery and postponed implant placement in curative oral oncology: a five-year retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare costs and clinical outcomes of two protocols for implant placement in edentulous oral cancer patients: implant placement during ablative surgery and postponed implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All edentulous patients who underwent curative tumor surgery between 2007 and 2009 at the Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc) and UMC Utrecht, both in the Netherlands, were included retrospectively. At the Radboudumc, 79 of 98 patients received implants during ablative surgery. At the UMC Utrecht, 18 of 95 patients received implants after a disease-free period of at least 6 months, because satisfying conventional dentures could not be made. Costs, implant details and clinical outcomes were recorded retrospectively up to 5 years after tumor surgery. RESULTS: Individual costs of implant placement were lower in the during-ablative-surgery protocol (€2235 vs. €4152), while implant failure and loading were comparable to the postponed-placement protocol. In the during-ablative-surgery protocol, more patients received implant-retained overdentures (62% vs. 17%) and more patients had functioning dentures (65% vs. 47%), which were placed at an earlier stage (291 vs. 389 days after surgery). Overall costs of the during-ablative-surgery protocol were higher, as more patients received implants and functioning implant-retained dentures, which were more expensive than conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: Placing implants during ablative surgery lowered the individual costs of implant placement and led to more patients with functioning dentures, while implant failure and loading were comparable to postponed placement.

What do sales data tell us about implant survival?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant diameter, length and shape on a surrogate parameter of implant survival; i.e. the implant return rate in a big data analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted and the factors influencing the success rates of 69,377 sold implants over a seven-year period were evaluated. The osseointegration program of a reseller provides reliable data of a single country. Implant loss rates were investigated using logistic regression models and regressed by implant type, diameter, and length. RESULTS: The return rate of 69,377 sold implants was 2.78% and comparable to implant loss rates in previous published prospective studies as its surrogate parameter. A total of 80% of implant returns had occurred within 157 days, and an additional 15% within 750.25 days. Diameters of 3.8 to 5.0mm showed the lowest return rates with its bottom in the 4.3mm implant whilst 6.0mm implants had significantly higher return rates. In comparison to the most sold implant length (13mm) shorter implants showed significantly higher early return rates. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that in cases of standard indications and sufficient bone, the use of screw typed dental implants with 3.8 or 4.3 diameter and 11 or 13 mm length shows the lowest implant return rates. Other implants may be selected only in specific indications.

Cost and lack of insurance coverage are prohibitive to having dental implants after resections for benign mandibular neoplasms.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how often patients receive dental implants after mandibular resection for benign neoplasms and to determine barriers to completion of functional reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent resection for benign mandibular neoplasms between 2005 and 2014. Demographic variables included age, sex, and race. Outcome variables include rates of implant placement, implant restoration, and reasons for not having implants. Fisher's exact test and odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: In all, 52 subjects (age 47.1 ± 19.2 years) were included. Twenty (38.6%) received dental implants. Race was associated with the likelihood of receiving implants (P = .0302). African Americans (1/11, 9.1%) were least likely compared to all other racial groups to have implants (odds ratio = 0.1158; P = .035; 95% confidence interval 0.013-0.989). Caucasians (17/35, 48.6%) were 4.41 times more likely to receive implants compared to all other races (odds ratio = 4.41; 95% confidence interval 1.073-18.093; P = .038). Of the 20 patients who received implants, 10 went on to have dental prostheses. The most common reason for not having implants was cost (37.5% overall), cited by 50% of black and 16.7% of white patients. CONCLUSION: Patients do not typically go on to dental reconstruction after mandibular resection, with cost as a major barrier. African Americans were least likely to complete full reconstruction.

Patient-related outcome measures with implant therapy after 5 years.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients' perception of implant therapy in partial edentulism, after 5 years with implant-supported reconstructions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who received dental implants at the National Dental Centre, Singapore 3-9 years earlier (mean: 5.2 years) were invited to participate in the study. Responders were examined clinically, and asked to answer a questionnaire with 13 statements. RESULTS: Of the 880 patients, 206 patients, with 329 implants, agreed to participate. Of the implants, 82% supported single crowns, while 18% were reconstructed with splinted crowns or fixed dental prostheses. Function and chewing comfort yielded high patient satisfaction. Comparing chewing comfort for teeth and implants, respectively, 51% perceived no difference between the two. Patients were largely satisfied with the phonetic function and esthetic outcome. Only two in three patients were able to cleanse the implant reconstruction well, and majority of the patients reported no difference comparing the time taken to clean implants and teeth. Patients were generally unsure if the tissues around their implants or teeth bled more. Pertaining to expectations, most patients were satisfied with the treatment, and majority were willing to undergo the same treatment again. Most patients would recommend such treatment to friends, if indicated. Only slightly over one-third of the patients felt certain that the cost of the treatment was justified. CONCLUSION: The large majority was satisfied with the functional outcomes of implant treatment. However, the patients had a less than ideal understanding of gingival health around teeth and implants. Patients were less discerning than clinicians in the assessment of esthetic outcomes.

Short (6-mm) dental implants versus sinus floor elevation and placement of longer (≥10-mm) dental implants: a randomized controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether short (6-mm) dental implants could be an alternative to sinus floor elevation (SFE) and placement of longer (≥10-mm) implants in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 3-year period, all patients presenting with partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla were considered for inclusion in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly chosen either to receive short (6-mm) implants (test group [TG]) or to undergo SFE with simultaneous placement of standard-length (≥10-mm) implants (control group [CG]). SFE was performed using the lateral technique. In both groups, tapered implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) were placed. All implants were loaded after 4 months of healing. At each annual follow-up session, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. Primary outcomes were implant survival, stability (measured with the implant stability quotient [ISQ]), marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications; secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and treatment time and cost. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were assigned to the TG and 20 to the CG. Forty-five implants were inserted in each group. At 3 years, implant survival rates were 100% and 95.0% for the TG and CG, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.38). The mean ISQ values of the TG and CG did not differ at placement (68.2 vs. 67.8, P = 0.1), at delivery of the final restoration (69.5 vs. 69.4, P = 0.9), and after 1 year (71.0 vs. 71.5, P = 0.1); at 3 years, the CG had a significantly higher mean ISQ than the TG (72.4 vs. 71.6, P = 0.004). Mean MBL was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, both at 1 year (0.14 mm vs. 0.21 mm, P = 0.006) and at 3 years (0.20 mm vs. 0.27 mm, P = 0.01). A few complications were reported. Surgical time and cost were significantly higher in the CG than in the TG (P < 0.0001). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, results for short (6-mm) implants were similar to those for longer (≥10-mm) implants in augmented bone. Short implants might be preferable to SFE, because the treatment is faster and less expensive. Long-term randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these results.

Reasons for not using Implants to retain Complete Denture: Patients' Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain more information from complete denture (CD) wearers who did not receive dental implants, of the reasons preventing them from using implants to retain their CD in a selected sample of dental patients in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A paper-and-pencil questionnaire containing 20 direct questions of the possible reasons preventing CD wearers from receiving implants to retain their dentures was distributed in three different places in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: A total of 270 subjects were included in this survey. The results showed that 180 (66.7%) patients indicated that the fear of pain associated with implant placement was the main reason preventing them from receiving an implant treatment, followed by fear of the surgical procedure (175, 64.8%), fear of postoperative complications (166, 61.5%), information from other people about the various problems associated with implant treatment (154, 57%), and finally cost of the implant (141, 52.2%). CONCLUSION: Fear is the main reason preventing CD wearers from receiving implant treatment. Therefore, it is essential for dentists to be familiar with the reasons for implant refusal to overcome a common, yet an influential obstacle.

Patient satisfaction 8-14 years after dental implant therapy - a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this questionnaire study was to investigate patient satisfaction 8-14 years after dental implant therapy and complications influencing the degree of satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent by post to 587 patients at a specialist clinic of periodontology. The questionnaire consisted of 19 statements or questions such as the degree of satisfaction with the implants and knowledge of complications. In nine of the questions, respondents were asked to grade the extent of their agreement with a statement by selecting from fixed answers. Three of the questions were designed to be answered using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: In total, 400 individuals (81%) responded to the questionnaire. The mean time elapsed since implant installation was 10 years. A great majority (81%) experienced a high chewing comfort and was satisfied or sufficiently satisfied (94%) with the aesthetic aspects of their implant restorations, while 32% of the individuals had experienced problems with their implant reconstructions. The disadvantage that patients remarked on was the cost of the treatment. Those who had experienced problems with their implant reconstructions were also less satisfied with the treatment. CONCLUSION: A great majority of the patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their dental implants 8-14 years after the treatment. Patients were less satisfied if they had experience of problems with their implant reconstructions and in cases when the clinicians were unable to resolve their complications.

Dental implant treatment following trauma: An investigation into the failure to complete Accident Compensation Corporation funded care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Among other restorative strategies, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides benefits for dental implant treatment to replace teeth lost as a result of trauma. While ACC has funded over 15,000 dental implants since 2002, the outcomes of this treatment and patient perceptions of this treatment have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the dental implant treatment outcomes and reasons for failure to complete restorative treatment in patients who had undergone trauma-related implant surgery funded by ACC between February 2006 and September 2009, but had not completed the prosthetic component of the treatment. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 399 patients, who had undergone dental implant surgery but not completed the crown restoration, was identified from the ACC database. These individuals were contacted by mail for expressions of interest and 181 clients were interviewed by telephone. Responses to open-ended questions were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed using a general inductive technique. RESULTS: A common emergent theme was the high level of satisfaction expressed by participants with the implant process, however just under half of those responding felt they had been pushed into having implants and were given the impression that this was the only treatment ACC paid for. The cost of the prosthetic phase of the treatment and surgical complications were identified as the primary reasons why participants failed to complete the restorative phase of treatment, after completing the surgical phase. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlighted the need to better inform patients of their treatment options and to allow time for them to process this information before progressing with care. A patient decision tool may help to give greater ownership of the treatment options. Newly implemented protocols to assist dentists to better assess treatment needs may also assist in achieving improvements in perceived treatment outcomes for patients.

A qualitative analysis on participants' perspectives on oral implants.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative research methods provide clinicians with information about the effectiveness of interventions and determined causal-effect relationships, whereas qualitative research investigates other aspects of clinical implant practice, particularly the participants' perspectives and expectations. The aim of the qualitative study was to understand the experience of participants with immediate single molar implants. METHODS: In-depth, audiorecorded, semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 participants who had participated in a controlled clinical trial of immediate molar implants. Participants were aged 36-77 years. Nine participants received single implants in mandibular molar fresh extraction sockets while the remaining participants had their implants in healed sites. The interviews that assessed participants' perspectives of the pre-operative, operative, and postoperative phases of therapy were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive and content analysis. RESULTS: Participants took part in the clinical trial mainly because it offered oral implant therapy at a reduced cost. The affordability of implant treatment was the main factor in determining restorative options. Minimal differences were found between male and female participants of different age groups in terms of their perceptions of function and aesthetics. However, single molar implants did not have an impact on aesthetics and self-esteem. Participants' expectations regarding the longevity of oral implants were not realistic and their knowledge about future maintenance needs was not adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Using face-to-face verbal conversation more frequently may improve communication between clinicians and participants and minimize misunderstanding about the procedures of different treatment modalities. Special emphasis should be placed on understanding the importance of maintenance by spending more time with the participants to identify any future barriers to maintaining good outcomes of oral implants.

The patient undergoing implant therapy. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015.

INTRODUCTION: The assignment for this working group was to update the existing knowledge regarding factors considered being of special relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. This included areas where conflicting opinions exists since long or recently has been expressed, like the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery and peri-implantitis. Also areas with growing interest and concern such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and health-economy was included in this review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature in the respective areas of interest (antibiotic prophylaxis, peri-implantitis, patient-reported outcome measurements and health-economic aspects) was searched using different strategies for the different papers. Search strategies ranged from a complex systematic review to systematic- and narrative reviews, depending on subject and available literature. All collected material was critically reviewed. Four manuscripts were subsequently presented for group analysis and discussion and plenum discussions and concensus approval. The selected areas were considered to be of key importance and relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. RESULTS: The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. The group's conclusions, identified knowledge gaps, directions for future research and concensus statements are presented in this article. The following reviews were available for group discussions and the foundation for subsequent plenary sessions: Lund B, Hultin M, Tranaeus S, Naimi-Akbar A, Klinge B. (2015) Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement. A complex systematic review. Renvert S & Quirynen M. (2015) Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Matthys C, Cosyn J. (2015) The current use of patient centered/reported outcomes in implant dentistry. A systematic review. Beikler T & Flemmig T.F. (2015) Economic evaluation of implant-supported prostheses. A narrative review.

Public perceptions of dental implants: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Dental implants have become a popular option for treating partially dentate or edentulous patients. Information on dental implants is widely available in the public domain and is disseminated through industries and dental practitioners at various levels/disciplines. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the public's information acquisition and their perceptions of dental implants and the effects of these on their care-seeking and decision making. METHODS: A purposive sample of 28 adults were recruited to join six focus groups. To be eligible, one must be 35-64 years of age, had never been engaged in dentally related jobs, had at least one missing tooth, and had heard about dental implant but never received dental implant or entered into any dental consultation regarding dental implants. All of the focus groups discussions were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic content analysis following a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Participants acquired information on dental implants through various means, such as patient information boards, printed advertisements, social media, and personal connections. They expected dental implants to restore the patients' appearance, functions, and quality of life to absolute normality. They regarded dental implants as a panacea for all cases of missing teeth, overestimated their functions and longevity, and underestimated the expertise needed to carry out the clinical procedures. They were deterred from seeking dental implant treatment by the high price, invasive procedures, risks, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public were exposed to information of varying quality and had some unrealistic expectations regarding dental implants. Such perceptions may shape their care-seeking behaviours and decision-making processes in one way or another. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The views and experiences gathered in this qualitative study could assist clinicians to better understand the public's perspectives, facilitate constructive patient-dentist communication, and contribute to the creation of positive clinical experiences in implant dentistry.

EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short implants in the posterior maxilla to longer implants placed after or simultaneously with sinus floor elevation procedures. The focused question was as follows: Are short implants superior to longer implants in the augmented sinus in terms of survival and complication rates of implants and reconstructions, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and costs? METHODS: A MEDLINE search (1990-2014) was performed for randomized controlled clinical studies comparing short implants (≤8 mm) to longer implants (>8 mm) in augmented sinus. The search was complimented by an additional hand search of the selected papers and reviews published between 2011 and 2014. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. Descriptive statistics were applied for a number of outcome measures. Survival rates of dental implants were pooled simply in case of comparable studies. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing short implants versus longer implants in the augmented sinus derived from an initial search count of 851 titles were selected and data extracted. In general, all studies were well conducted with a low risk of bias for the majority of the analyzed parameters. Based on the pooled analyses of longer follow-ups (5 studies, 16-18 months), the survival rate of longer implants amounted to 99.5% (95% CI: 97.6-99.98%) and for shorter implants to 99.0% (95% CI: 96.4-99.8%). For shorter follow-ups (3 studies, 8-9 months), the survival rates of longer implants are 100% (95% CI: 97.1-100%) and for shorter implants 98.2% (95% CI: 93.9-99.7%). Complications were predominantly of biological origin, mainly occurred intraoperatively as membrane perforations, and were almost three times as higher for longer implant in the augmented sinus compared to shorter implants. PROMs, morbidity, surgical time and costs were generally in favor of shorter dental implants. All studies were performed by surgeons in specialized clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the survey analyses demonstrated predictably high implant survival rates for short implants and longer implants placed in augmented sinus and their respective reconstructions. Given the higher number of biological complications, increased morbidity, costs and surgical time of longer dental implants in the augmented sinus, shorter dental implants may represent the preferred treatment alternative.