Search

BACKGROUND Short implants (up to 5-mm long) have shown good results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented bone. PURPOSE To evaluate if 4-mm ultrashort implants could also be an alternative to bone augmentation in the severely atrophic posterior jaws. The primary aim of the study was to compare implant survival rates between study groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty partially edentulous patients with posterior atrophic jaws (5-6 mm of bone above the mandibular canal and 4-5 mm below the maxillary sinus) were included: 40 patients in the maxilla and 40 in mandible. The patients were randomized to receive one to three 4-mm ultrashort implants or one to three implants at least 10-mm long in augmented bone. Results are reported 5 years after loading with the following outcome measures: implant and prosthetic failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. RESULTS Thirty-two complications were reported for the control group in 18 patients versus 13 complications in 10 patients in the test group, the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.103). In the augmented group, 12 implants failed in 6 patients versus 7 short implants in 6 cases, and 9 prostheses failed in the control group while 4 in the test one, without statistically significant differences (p = 1.000 and 0.363, respectively). At 5 years after loading, short implants lost on average 0.58 ± 0.40 mm of peri-implant marginal bone and long implants 0.99 ± 0.58 mm, the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION Four-millimeter ultrashort implants showed similar if not better results when compared to longer implants placed in augmented jaws 5 years after loading. For this reason, their use could be in specific cases preferable to bone augmentation since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity. However, longer follow-ups and larger trials are needed.

Background Dental rehabilitation with conventional prostheses after microvascular jaw reconstruction is often unsuccessful because of the altered oral anatomy and the lack of adequate dentition for fixation. Purpose This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent jaws reconstruction with a fibula free flap and subsequent rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses. Materials and methods In total, 21 patients were enrolled; 108 osseointegrated dental implants, positioned on 21 fibular free flaps were assessed. Follow-up examinations were performed according to a standardized protocol, including clinical and radiological evaluations. The mean follow-up after implant insertion was 90.2 (range, 20-204) months. Results The overall implant survival rate was 97.2% at the 12-month follow-up, 86.5% at 60 months, and 79.3% at 120 months. The rate of overall implant success was 95.4% at the 12-month follow-up, 73.5% at 60 months, and 64.7% at 120 months. Implant failure was more common in patients that had implants placed after they underwent radiation therapy. Peri-implantitis and mucositis were identified in 14.8% and 20.3% of surviving implants, respectively, at the 5- and 10-year follow-up. The risk of developing peri-implantitis was estimated to be higher (odds ratio = 1.5) for patients without connective tissue or skin grafts versus patients with one of them (18.2% vs 9.5%). Conclusions Long-term implant-related outcomes show that the survival rate of implants placed into the fibula is acceptable. Radiotherapy negatively impacts survival and success, in particular in the short and medium-term follow-up. Moreover, a relevant peri-implant bone resorption does occur over time and ultimately influences implants success, and it is mainly related to peri-implant gingival mucositis. In this regard skin or connective tissue grafts seem to offer an aid to manage this problem.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival and clinical success rate, complications, and patients&rsquo, quality of life after computer-aided rehabilitation supported by zygomatic implants in cases of severe maxillary atrophy (ten patients) and in bone defects in oncologic patients (ten patients). All patients underwent computer-aided planning and surgery. Seventy-three zygomatic implants were placed. The mean follow-up period was 39.9 months. Implant survival and clinical success rate, the effectiveness of planning the implant length, biological and prosthetic complications, and the quality of life were evaluated. The five-year implant survival rate for patients with maxillary atrophy and oncologic patients was 97.4% and 96.7%, respectively. The prosthetic survival rate was 100%. Two implant failures occurred in the first year. One implant failure was observed in each group. Minor biological and prosthetic complications occurred in both groups without significant differences. All complications were managed without affecting the treatment. The quality of life increased by 71.3% in the atrophic group and by 82.9% in the oncologic group. Zygomatic implant rehabilitation seems to be a reliable technique for patients with maxillary atrophy and for oncologic patients. The three-dimensional computer-aided approach allows the surgeon to plan the surgery and increase its predictability. Early prosthesis loading certainly allows for better functional outcomes.