RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Individuals with tooth agenesis often present a significant clinical challenge for dental practitioners. This retrospective study evaluated clinical and radiological long-term functional and esthetic outcomes following restoration using primary teeth to support fixed all-ceramic prosthesis in patients with teeth agenesis. METHODS: Patients with teeth agenesis and at least one year follow-up were included. Examinations included panoramic X-ray, clinical examination and family history records. Only primary teeth without permanent teeth underneath were chosen. All ceramic fixed restorations were used. All data were collected from patient files. Outcome parameters included: restoration parameters (restoration survival, restoration fractures, restoration detachment, restoration replacement, and secondary caries), plaque index, and gingival index. RESULTS: The study included 58 porcelain restorations inserted in 25 individuals; mean age 12 ± 2.1 years (range 10-19 years); mean number of missing teeth 12.3 ± 9 (range 6-12). Mean follow-up 48 ± 6 months (range 12-60 months). All restorations survived up to last follow-up, rendering a survival rate of 100%. Restorations outcome-porcelain chipping (9%), detachment (2%), no restoration replacement nor secondary caries, mean gingival index-0.7 ± 0.5 and mean plaque index-0.9 ± 0.3. CONCLUSIONS: In tooth agenesis, restoration using primary teeth to support fixed all-ceramic prosthesis is a viable treatment alternative.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Substantial effort is dedicated to finding the most favorable parameters that will ensure low aftercare demands among edentulous patients wearing mandibular implant supported overdentures (MISODs). The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare prosthetic aftercare between MISOD patients with a simultaneous (group A) vs. a three-week settling in period (group B) prior to attachment incorporation. METHODS: Forty-five patients enrolled in this study. Two implants per patient were placed using a two-stage implant insertion protocol. Second-stage surgery was performed after three months. All patients received ball attachments using the direct (chairside) incorporation method. Twenty-two patients received their dentures with simultaneous attachment activation and the rest-twenty-three patients-after a three-week settling in period. Patients' files were scanned for aftercare visits. Outcome parameters included sore spot relief, attachment incorporation, and denture repair. Additionally, gingival index measurements were compared. Confounding factors included age, gender, and implant dimensions. RESULTS: The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 84 ± 21 months, and the range 39-120 months. The mean number of visits for group A vs. B respectively: pressure sores relieve (3.63 ± 0.84 vs. 3.71 ± 0.61, p = 0.581), liner exchange due to loss of retention (2.09 ± 1.03 vs. 2.31 ± 1.04 p = 0.487), and gingival index (1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.03 ± 0.2, p = 0.653) exhibited no statistically significant differences between the tested groups. No statistically significant differences between the groups were also noted for the denture repair aftercare treatments (p = 0.318) and the independent variables including age, gender, and implant length. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic aftercare in MISOD wearers is similar whether a simultaneous or a three-week settling in period for attachment incorporation is applied.
