Search

Background: It has been reported in many articles that marginal bone resorptions are prevented by platform-switching design. However, what occurs when these implants are placed in the apical position is not completely known., Purpose: This report describes a randomized controlled clinical trial study that aims to test the hypothesis that less resorption will occur when platform-switching implants are placed 1 mm below bone level., Materials and Methods: A total of 56 randomly selected implants were inserted bilaterally, either 1 mm below bone level (test group, 28 implants) or at bone level (control group, 28 implants) of the patients' posterior regions. Marginal bone resorptions were examined through periapical radiographies taken with the parallel technique at the time of crown cementation and the third, sixth, 12th, and 36th months after prosthetic loading. The modified plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing, and probing depths were used for follow-up periodontal care of the implants., Results: After 3 years, the mean radiographic vertical bone loss in the control group was significantly lower than in the test group (0.56 ± 0.35 mm and 1.21 ± 1.05 mm, respectively) (p < .01). In terms of periodontal indexes, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (p > .05). No peri-implantitis or peri-implant mucositis was observed around the test or control implants., Conclusions: More marginal bone resorptions occurred after the third year of loading in implants placed 1 mm below bone level. However, the resorptions did not reach the implants thread. In the control group, the first bone implant contact was placed under the level of the first threads. Therefore, the present randomized clinical trial confirmed the hypothesis that placing platform-switching implants 1 mm below bone level reduced marginal bone loss. It can be noted that to reduce resorption, platform-switching implants should be placed below bone level., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aim: To assess the efficacy of quick-release lornoxicam (LNX) on patient-reported acute pain after dental implant surgery., Materials and Methods: The study included subjects in good general health, aged 18 to 65 and scheduled to receive a maximum of three implants in the same quadrant. Participants received either 8 mg LNX or placebo and were asked to use the medications in case of pain in the first 120 min after implant surgery. Assessment of efficacy was performed using self-assessment questionnaires for the evaluation of pain intensity and pain relief for 12 h post dosing. Patients were also asked to record the rescue analgesic number. Evaluation of patient satisfaction was assessed using a 7-point scale. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse events., Results: A total of 83 (LNX/placebo, 42/41) patients who met the inclusion criteria and finished the evaluation period were included in the study. The proportion of patients experiencing postoperative pain was significantly lower in the LNX-treated group compared to the placebo group. Patients in the LNX group reported significantly higher pain relief scores than the placebo group. Twenty-nine patients in the placebo group and 6 patients in the LNX group used rescue analgesics. The number of used rescue analgesics was 1.024 ± 0.79 and 0.167 ± 0.43 in the placebo and LNX groups, respectively. The level of patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the LNX-treated patients (P = 0.007). No adverse events were reported during the study period., Conclusions: Quick-release LNX is effective in postoperative acute pain control and has a high safety profile following dental implant surgery.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and post-operative outcomes of a computer-aided implant surgery performed by bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic (SLA) guides against the standard technique., Material and Methods: Multiple- and single-type SLA guides from two commercial manufacturers were produced and a total of 341 implants were placed to 52 patients using the standard technique (Control group), bone- (bone-supported guide [BSG] group) and mucosa-supported SLA guides (Flapless group) in 21, 16 and 15 patients, respectively. Surgical duration (min), number of analgesics (tablets) as well as hemorrhage, difficulty in mouth opening (or trismus) and other incidences were recorded. Pain and swelling was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS). Parametric and non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis (P<.05)., Results: The mean surgery duration (23.53+/-5.48 min) and the number of analgesics consumed (four tablets) in the Flapless group were lower than those in the control (68.71+/-11.4 min and 10 tablets) and BSG groups (60.94+/-13.07 min and 11 tablets, P<0.01). The change in pain scores (VAS) and the number of analgesics consumed in time were statistically significant (P<0.01 and 0.05, respectively) and the Flapless group reported a lower pain score than the BSG (P<0.01) and Control groups (P<0.001). The Flapless group experienced less hemorrhage (chi(2)=4.12, P=0.041 on the day of surgery) and fewer instances of trismus (chi(2)=6.91, P=0.031 the day after surgery). The differences in early-term failures were not statistically significant between the groups (log-rank test: P=0.782)., Conclusion: The use of mucosa-supported single SLA guides for flapless implant placement may help reduce the surgery duration, pain intensity, related analgesic consumption and most other complications typical in the post-implant surgery period. However, there are particular drawbacks in both guide types and further studies are required to confirm the prosthodontic conformity and long-term success of implants placed using computer-assisted techniques.

Objectives: Narrow diameter implants (NDIs; diameter >3.75 mm) are useful in replacement of missing incisor teeth and when the bucco-lingual width of the edentulous crest is insufficient. The present study evaluated the success and survival rates, peri-implant parameters, mechanical and prosthetic post-loading complications of NDIs followed over a 10-year period., Material and Methods: Three hundred and sixteen NDIs were inserted into 139 patients and restored with 120 prostheses. Clinical and radiographic assessment data were collected during recall visits. Implant success (SC), cumulative survival rate (CSR), marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant conditions and prosthetic complications were assessed. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival curves with the log-rank test and life table analysis were used to evaluate the outcome of NDIs within comparable subgroups. MBL and peri-implant parameters measured annually were further analyzed., Results: The mean follow-up time was 9.1 years (range: 60-124 months). Twelve implants were lost in the healing phase and two during function. The mean MBL in the maxilla and the mandible was 1.32 +/- 0.13 and 1.28 +/- 0.3 mm, respectively, after 10 years. SC and CSR were 91.4% and 92.3%, respectively, after 124 months. Smoking and posterior localization were associated with an increased risk of failure. Cement loosening (16.8%) was the most common prosthetic complication. No implants were fractured., Conclusions: NDIs can be used with confidence where a regular diameter implant is not suitable. MBL around NDIs occurred predominantly within 2 years of loading and was minimal thereafter. Further studies are required to clarify the possible risks associated with smoking and posterior placement.

Background: Stereolithographic surgical guides provide significant benefits during the simultaneous placement of multiple implants with regard to the final prosthetic plan. However, deviation from the planning poses a significant risk. Deviations of implants that were placed by bone-, tooth-, and mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical guides were examined in this study., Methods: After enrolling 54 eligible patients, 294 implants were planned on cone-beam computerized tomography CB(CT)-derived images. Sixty guides, both single- and multiple-type, were produced using two commercial systems. Mucosa-supported guides were fixed with osteosynthesis screws. Implants were inserted, and at the end of osseointegration period, a new CB(CT) scan was performed. Preoperative planning was merged with the new CB(CT) data to identify the deviations between the planned and placed implants for each support type and manufacturer. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for comparison (P <0.05)., Results: There were no damage-related complications in any critical anatomy. Implants that were placed by bone-supported guides had the highest mean deviations (5.0 degrees +/- 1.66 degrees angular, and 1.70 +/- 0.52 mm and 1.99 +/- 0.64 mm for implant shoulder and tip, respectively), whereas the lowest deviations were measured in implants that were placed by mucosa-supported guides (2.9 degrees +/- 0.39 degrees angular, and 0.7 +/- 0.13 mm and 0.76 +/- 0.15 mm for implant shoulder and tip, respectively)., Conclusions: Computer-aided planning and manufacturing surgical guides in accordance with CB(CT) images may help clinicians place implants. Rigid screw fixation of a single guide incorporating metal sleeves and a special drill kit further minimizes deviations.

Background: The analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of tenoxicam and meloxicam were evaluated in this double-masked, randomized, prospective study by analyzing pain scores and the need for rescue-analgesic agents following dental implant surgery., Methods: One hundred patients, in whom 241 dental implants were placed, were divided into two groups. For 4 days beginning the day before surgery, the first group received meloxicam, 15 mg daily, and the second group received tenoxicam, 20 mg daily, followed by 1 hour preoperatively and for 2 days thereafter. Pain intensity was rated by the subjects based on a visual analog scale on the operation day and on the following 6 days. The patients were recommended to use a rescue analgesic if the pain score was > or =4. Postoperative complications, such as edema, hematoma, infection, severe pain, paresthesia, or gastrointestinal complaints, were also noted., Results: Statistical analysis revealed that 54% of patients in the tenoxicam group and 66% of patients in the meloxicam group used rescue analgesics on day 1. However, the difference between the groups was not significant (chi(2) = 1.05; P = 0.30). The relationship between the reduction of consumption and time was not significant in either group (Z = 0.84; P = 0.40). The relationship between the use of rescue analgesics and the number of implants placed was not significant. Among patients who reported postoperative complications, there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (chi(2) = 0.04; P = 0.84)., Conclusion: Meloxicam and tenoxicam exhibited a similar analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy in the present investigation.