Implants In Augmented Bone Research Articles

Are

To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of <7 mm short (SH) implants inserted in native bone vs longer (ST) implants placed in vertically augmented partially edentulous posterior jaws. A further aim was to evaluate if the residual bone dimension plays a role in the outcomes of SH and extra-SH implants. This review was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 1-year follow-up, comparing fixed prostheses supported by SH vs ST implants in augmented sites were included. Marginal bone level (MBL) changes, implant survival rate, and complications were evaluated through a meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed dividing the SH implants according to length at each follow-up (1-, 3-, 5-year of function). Twenty-five articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, featuring a total of 650 SH implants placed in 415 patients and 685 ST implants placed in 403 patients. There was a trend for a significantly lower MBL associated with SH implants respect to ST implants at each follow-up, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in failure rates between SH and ST implants, for any SH length considered and at any follow-up. There was evidence for a lower incidence of complications in favor of SH implants at both 1-year (P < .0001) and 3-year follow-up (P = .01), while at 5-year follow-up there was no evidence of a difference between SH and ST groups (P = .30). SH implants supporting partial fixed rehabilitations represent a valuable alternative to augmentation procedures in the medium term. While the performance of implants at least 5-mm long is well documented, more studies with at least 5-year follow-up are needed to confirm the promising outcomes observed with <5 mm-long fixtures.

5 × 5 mm vs longer implants in augmented bone‐ 5‐year results from a RCT

5 × 5 mm vs longer implants in augmented bone‐ 5‐year results from a RCT

Four mm‐long versus longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws – Three‐year RCT results

Four mm‐long versus longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws – Three‐year RCT results

Short implants (5–8 mm) vs. long implants in augmented bone and their impact on peri-implant bone in maxilla and/or mandible: Systematic review

ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic literature review is to determine the impact of implant length on marginal bone loss in atrophied arches. Material and methodsThe systematic search of the literature was carried out using electronic databases PubMed, EbscoHost, Cochrane, as well as a manual search of randomized controlled trials in humans, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months, published between 2005 and 2016, comparing the short implants on the one hand, and the long implants placed in atrophic bone crests having undergone bone augmentation on the other hand. This systematic review followed the guidelines of PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). The results of the clinical trials were described according to the PICO criteria. The qualitative analysis was conducted by Jadad scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. ResultsThirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our systematic review. Gradual marginal bone loss (intra-group comparison) was significant regardless of the arcade. The difference in bone loss between short and long implants (inter-group comparison) was not significant in the first year, but became significant at the end of the fifth year regardless of the arcade. ConclusionDespite the satisfactory results in relation to short implants, it is appropriate to extend the duration of RCTs up to 10 years in order to support the data collected in our systematic review.

6‐mm‐long 4‐mm‐wide implants or longer implants in augmented bone – 3‐year RCT results

6‐mm‐long 4‐mm‐wide implants or longer implants in augmented bone – 3‐year RCT results

O080: 4 mm‐long versus longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws: 1‐year post‐loading results from a multicenter randomised controlled trial

O080: 4 mm‐long versus longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws: 1‐year post‐loading results from a multicenter randomised controlled trial

Four mm‐long versus longer implants in augmented bone in atrophic jaws: 1‐year loading RCT results

Four mm‐long versus longer implants in augmented bone in atrophic jaws: 1‐year loading RCT results

Surgical techniques used in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients with atrophic posterior mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

PurposeGiven the lack of general consensus in the literature regarding the best method to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients with extended atrophic edentulous sites in the posterior zone of the mandible, and with a residual ridge height less than 8 mm (with or without bone augmentation procedures), the aim of this systematic review was to analyze all the relevant randomized clinical trials (RCT), and, by means of a meta-analysis of the collected data, draw some conclusions regarding the best available treatments for the rehabilitation of posterior edentulism in partially dentate mandible. Materials and methodsAn electronic search was conducted in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases for studies published between January 2000 and September 2015 with the use of relevant keywords and hand-searching. All identified publications were screened by the authors according to the Cochrane Data Collection Form for Intervention Reviews. Collected outcomes such as biological complications, vertical ridge changes, implant and prosthetic failure were studied by subgroups analyses. ResultsAn initial search yielded 81 potential articles, of which 12 studies were chosen for inclusion. Short implants seemed to be effective in limiting incidence of the biological complications (RR: 2.822; 95% CI: 1.809–4.403; p < 0.0001) and degree of ridge height reduction (difference in means of 0.052 mm; 95% CI: 0.026–0.079 mm; p < 0.0001) when compared with long implants placed in augmented bone. Implants placed in augmented areas with the use of onlay block grafts seemed to behave worse than implants placed in the augmented sites regardless of the augmentation procedures. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance. ConclusionFindings from subgroup analyses revealed that (1) short implants placed in the posterior atrophic areas of partially edentulous mandibles were associated with superior outcomes compared with long implants in augmented bone, such as lower rate of biological complications and of peri-implant bone loss; whereas (2), there was no evidence that onlay augmentation was inferior to any of the other augmentation techniques employed.

Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone.

The aim of this narrative review is to describe treatment options for the posterior regions of the mandible and the maxilla, comparing short implants vs. longer implants in an augmented bone. The dental literature was screened for treatment options enabling the placement of dental implants in posterior sites with a reduced vertical bone height in the maxilla and the mandible. Short dental implants have been increasingly used recently, providing a number of advantages including reduced patient morbidity, shorter treatment time, and lower costs. In the posterior maxilla, sinus elevation procedures were for long considered to be the gold standard using various bone substitute materials and rendering high implant survival rates. More recently, implants were even placed without any further use of bone substitute materials, but the long-term outcomes have yet to be documented. Vertical bone augmentation procedures in the mandible require a relatively high level of surgical skill and allow the placement of standard-length dental implants by the use of autogenous bone blocks. Both treatment options, short dental implants, and standard-length implants in combination with vertical bone augmentation procedures, appear to result in predictable outcomes in terms of implant survival rates. According to recent clinical studies comparing the therapeutic options of short implants vs. long implants in augmented bone, the use of short dental implants leads to a number of advantages for the patients and the clinician.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest passing through the maxillary sinus, or externally to it, to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants may also be needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilise the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed prosthesis could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for zygomatic implants could be maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients. To assess the effects of zygomatic implants with and without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses of severely resorbed maxillae. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). Personal contacts and all known zygomatic implant manufacturers were contacted to identify unpublished trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with severely resorbed maxillae, who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants with and without bone grafts versus participants treated with bone augmentation procedures and conventional dental implants, with a follow-up of at least one year in function. Two review authors would have extracted data from eligible studies and assessed their risk of bias independently and in duplicate. The results of included studies were to be combined in meta-analyses using random-effects models where there were more than four studies, and fixed-effect models where there were less than four studies. We would have expressed the estimate of the intervention effect as mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. We did not identify any RCTs which were eligible for inclusion in this review. There is a need for RCTs in this area to assess whether zygomatic implants offer some advantages over alternative bone augmentation techniques for treating atrophic maxillae.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla.

Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. However, the possibility of placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone grafting procedures have been developed to solve this problem. The missing bone can be taken from a donor site, transplanted where needed and then implants are placed. Major bone grafting operations have to be undertaken under general anaesthesia and patients have to be hospitalized for a few days. Some degree of morbidity related to the donor site must be expected and two to three surgical interventions are needed before the implants can be functionally used. Often patients have to wait more than 1 year before a denture can be fixed to the implants and the total cost of the treatment is high. However, the major problem is that about 25% of the implants placed in grafted bone fail. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as an alternative to bone grafting. Zygomatic implants are inserted into the body of the zygomatic bone. Their main advantages are that bone grafting may not be needed and patients may be fitted with a fixed denture much sooner. To test the hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between zygomatic implants without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for severely resorbed maxillae. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and manufacturers of dental implants were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: February 2003. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on patients with severely resorbed maxillae who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants without bone grafts versus conventional dental implants with bone grafts or other procedures for bone augmentation with a follow up of at least 1 year. Outcome measures considered were: prosthesis and implant failures, side effects, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. No RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified. There is an urgent need for RCTs in this area, since zygomatic implants, if found to be at least as effective as other augmentation procedures, may involve major advantages for both patients and society.