A telescopic crown concept for the restoration of partially edentulous patients with aggressive generalized periodontitis: a 3-year prospective longitudinal study.

This prospective longitudinal 3-year study compared clinical parameters and implant success rates of removable superstructures supported by both teeth and implants in patients with treated generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP) and of cemented, implant-retained fixed superstructures in periodontally healthy patients. A total of 17 partially edentulous patients with 54 implants took part in the study. Nine patients with treated GAP received removable superstructures according to the Marburg double crown system, and eight periodontally healthy patients received fixed superstructures. Teeth were examined 2 to 4 weeks before extraction of the nonretainable teeth (baseline) and 3 weeks after insertion of the definitive abutments. Every 3 months over a 3-year period, clinical parameters were recorded and the composition of the subgingival microflora was determined. Intraoral radiographs were obtained at baseline, just after insertion of the superstructure, and 1 and 3 years later. Both groups showed mean plaque and gingival indices below 0.43 at implants and teeth. Mean probing depths around implants increased by approximately 0.7 mm and remained virtually constant for the teeth. Mean attachment loss at implants was 0.9 mm in GAP patients and 0.5 mm in healthy patients. The morphologic distribution of microorganisms in both groups showed healthy conditions. Moderate bone loss at teeth and implants was registered. Implant success rates were 100% in the healthy patients and 97.6% in the GAP patients. No significant differences were seen in the results between the groups.

Quality of life of patients with maxillofacial defects after treatment for malignancy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to investigate how cancer patients with maxillofacial defects evaluate their quality of life after prosthodontic therapy, complemented by a retrospective interview for judging the various therapy steps. The results were compared with a nontumor control group (multiple tooth extractions) and with population-based norm data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 34 patients were included in the study, 17 in each group. Patients first filled in a questionnaire and then answered additional questions in a standardized interview. RESULTS: At the time of investigation, tumor patients did not significantly differ from nontumor patients regarding global quality of life. However, tumor patients had significantly less favorable values regarding role functioning, speech, mouth opening, and dry mouth, as well as pain and swallowing. In comparison with the reference data of the German population, tumor patients had considerable deficits (> 20 points) regarding role functioning, dyspnea, and financial difficulties. Other deficits (> 10 points) became apparent in global quality of life, fatigue, insomnia, and appetite. When reflecting the course of disease and recovery, tumor patients rated the diagnosis as the most stressful event and reported that the family was most instrumental in the recovery process. CONCLUSION: Patients with maxillofacial defects after treatment for malignancy suffer from numerous clearly definable quality of life-related symptoms and problems, even after prosthodontic treatment. These patients need psychologic care at the time of diagnosis to alleviate the burden of the cancer diagnosis and prepare for the demanding treatment. After completion of the prosthodontic treatment, therapy options for pain or speech problems should be offered.

A telescopic crown concept for the restoration of partially edentulous patients with aggressive generalized periodontitis: two case reports.

Osseointegrated implants have been used with outstanding success in periodontally healthy patients in recent years and have thus become an established part of prosthetic treatment. Whereas initial reports were confined to their use in edentulous patients, in particular in the mandibular area, first results on their application in the oral rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients were published in the mid-1980s. Whether the positive results reported in periodontally healthy patients are also applicable to patients with progressive periodontal disease has yet to be clarified. As only a few controlled longitudinal studies dealing with the success of implants in periodontally involved patients have been published to date, detailed case reports are of great importance.