Search

The term "buccal implant position" is commonly used but lacks a precise definition and missing a reference point. Considering its major impact on peri-implantitis and esthetic failures the purpose of this study was to find a correlation between bucco-palatal implant positioning and the midfacial soft tissue level of implant crowns using newly defined Emergence-points.Patients with unilateral single-tooth implant crowns in the region of the central or lateral maxillary incisor were included in this study. Digital intraoral scans were superimposed over a scan of the master cast or the original digital data set and analyzed in a computer planning program. In relation to the corresponding natural tooth, an ideal Emergence-point (ESeventy-three patients met the inclusion criteria. AD ranged from 0 to 3.5 mm (AD = 0.87 ± 1.01), SIP from 0.2 to 5.1 mm (AD = 2.66 ± 1.64). Statistical analysis showed a significant inverse correlation between AD and SIP (ρ = -.55, p .001). VIP, the implant inclination, time span since implant insertion, and phenotype revealed no significant correlation to AD.The more palatal the implant was positioned, the less AD was observed. The position of the implant shoulder should preferably be planned more than 2 mm behind the ideal E-point. This E-point can be used for implant planning as it defines the ideal crown length for prospective planning.

Losing teeth – particularly in the aesthetic zone of the anterior maxilla – represents a great dilemma for a patient and a challenge for the attending dentist. Immediate placement of dental implants at the day of tooth extraction is an established treatment concept that offers the possibility to provide fixed provisional crowns within few hours. Troublesome removable prostheses can thus be avoided, and the psychological trauma of tooth loss is minimised. The Copy-abutment technique was developed at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna (Austria) and guarantees the best possible preservation of soft-tissue aesthetics by immediate implant restoration using custom-made abutments composed of highly aesthetic zirconia ceramic. On the basis of a modern all-digital workflow and a close cooperation with the affiliated dental laboratory, it is possible to provide the patient with a new tooth in just 1 day.

Purpose: To compare long-term survival and marginal bone loss of immediate interantral implants in the nonaugmented maxilla subjected to immediate vs delayed loading. Materials and Methods: Graftless maxillary cross-arch rehabilitation was performed in a total of 362 patients in the years 2004 to 2013 (1,797 implants). Of the 240 patients with immediate implants replacing their failing maxillary dentition, 81% were subjected to immediate loading and 19% to delayed loading of their 4 to 6 interantral implants (980 and 235 implants, respectively). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were computed and marginal bone loss was evaluated in a stratified random sample of 20 patients per group. Results: Thirty-one of 1,215 implants failed within the mean observation period of 3.9 years, and no difference in 8-year survival estimates could be seen between immediate (97.6% [95% CI: 96.7 to 98.6]) and delayed (96.6% [95% CI: 94.3 to 98.9]) loading protocols (P = .359). Mean marginal bone resorption following implant insertion did not differ significantly between the groups (1.5 ± 1.7 mm vs 0.7 ± 1.1 mm, P = .379); however, it was significantly associated with a reduced number of implants (P = .017) and patient history of periodontal disease (P < .001). Conclusion: Immediate loading of interantral implants yields satisfactory results in the transition of patients from a failing maxillary dentition to full-arch implant rehabilitation and thus may be favored over delayed loading concepts.

Purpose: Failing residual dentition gives rise to patient concerns about the surgical and prosthodontic management of immediate implant rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to assess subjective patient experiences of full-arch immediate implant loading. Materials and Methods: Patients made a transition from poor dentition in the maxilla (25 patients) or mandible (25 patients) to full-arch rehabilitation on the day of extraction using four interantral or interforaminal implants. Provisional restoration was performed, and postoperative pain, swelling, and patient-perceived impairment in the first week was recorded. Results: Absence of pain was reported by 40%, 52%, and 66% of patients, on the day of surgery, on the first day after surgery, and on the second day after surgery, respectively; pain levels decreased significantly (from 1.8 to 0.9, P < .001) and patient-reported swelling decreased from 1.5 to 1.3 (P = .058) on a 10-point scale. Postoperative impairment of everyday life and work (mean score = 1.1) was significantly less pronounced than impairment of food intake (mean score = 2.2; P = .004) or speech (mean score = 1.9; P = .002). Of these patients, 88% would again undergo the procedure without doubt. Conclusion: Although patient-perceived morbidity after immediate full-arch implant rehabilitation is low in general, minor masticatory and phonetic impairment should be taken into account.

Bone grafting of the maxillary sinus is attempted to compensate for sinus pneumatization and permit reliable insertion of endosseous dental implants for prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of the present clinical investigation was to study bone regeneration four months after transcrestal sinus floor elevation via the Gel-Pressure Technique (GPT) and application of pasteous nano-crystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute. A total of 25 patients with deficient alveolar ridges in the posterior maxilla (mean residual bone height: 4.7 ± 1.8 mm) were subjected to 32 flapless transcrestal sinus floor augmentations and simultaneous insertion of 40 implants. Sinus membrane elevation height averaged 11.2 ± 2.7 mm and minimal vertical graft resorption of 0.1 mm was observed after four months. Radiographic bone density averaged 460 Hounsfield units in regions adjacent to the native jawbone (1 to 7 mm distance), while reduction of bone density by −7.2%, −11.3%, −14.8%, −19.6% and −22.7% was recorded in more apical regions of 8, 9, 10, 11, and ≥12 mm distance to the original sinus floor, respectively. The results suggest that graft remodeling is completed up to a distance of 7 mm within a healing period of four months after sinus augmentation using nano-crystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute material.

Minimally invasive implantology using reduced implant dimensions as well as virtual treatment planning and CAD/CAM stereolithographic templates has gained popularity in recent years. The aim of the present investigation was to analyze prevailing trends in clinical utilization of these graftless therapeutic options.A total of 12.865 dental implants were placed in 5.365 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna, of which 5.5% were short (length 10 mm), 19.5% narrow (diameter 3.75 mm) and 10.6% template-guided. Application trends were analyzed using linear regression and compared between jaw location and dentition subgroups.Use of short implants and guided surgery increased significantly in all subgroups. Narrow-diameter implants were most frequent in single-tooth gaps (24.1%), however, upward trends could only be observed in partially and completely edentulous patients. Short implants were predominantly used in the mandible (9.9% vs. 2.5%, P 0.001) while guided surgery was favored in the maxilla (14.2% vs. 5.4%, P 0.001).Short implants (most frequent in partial edentulism) and guided implant surgery (most frequent in complete edentulism) represent uprising and promising surgical approaches to avoid patient morbidity associated with bone graft surgery.

Prosthodontically driven biomechanical considerations are essential for longterm successful outcomes in dental implant therapy. Correct protocols seek to preclude potential consequences associated with functional and parafunctional occlusal overload such as screw loosening, component fracture, compromised marginal bone maintenance, and the integrity of the induced osseointegration response. Other concerns also need to be addressed, more especially when other implants are selected, for example: bridge insertion torque (BIT) in cases of immediate loading, cantilever length-anteroposterior spread ratio (CL-AP), overall crown-to-implant ratio (oCIR), total bone-to-implant surface area (tBICA), and the status of the opposing dentition. In spite of promising clinical results, evidence-based clinical protocols demand that such biomechanical limits still need to be determined.

To evaluate patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life, and patients' preferences towards minimally invasive treatment options for graftless rehabilitation of complete edentulism by means of dental implants.A MEDLINE search of literature in the English language up to the year 2013 was performed to summarise current evidence from the patient's perspective. The final selection included 37 studies reporting on minimally invasive implant treatment of 648 edentulous maxillae and 791 edentulous mandibles in 1328 patients, via a total of 5766 implants.Patient satisfaction averaged 91% with flapless implant placement (range: 77 to 100%), 89% with short implants, 87% with narrow-diameter implants (range: 80 to 93%), 90% with a reduced number of implants (range: 77 to 100%), 94% with tilted implant placement (range: 58 to 100%), and 83% with zygomatic fixtures (range: 50 to 97%). Indirect comparison yielded patient preference towards tilted implant placement compared to a reduced number of implants (P = 0.036), as well as to zygomatic implants (P = 0.001).While little evidence on patients' preferences towards minimally invasive treatment alternatives vs. bone augmentation surgery could be identified from within-study comparison, it may be concluded that patient satisfaction with graftless solutions for implant rehabilitation of completely edentulous jaws is generally high. Comparative effectiveness research is needed to substantiate their positive appeal to potential implant patients and possible reduction of the indication span for invasive bone graft surgery.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the sagittal inclination of interforaminal implants, the clinical implant outcome, and the necessary extent of prosthodontic compensation modalities for implant overdentures (IODs).Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 62 patients, each with a mandibular IOD retained by 2 to 4 implants, were analyzed. The sagittal inclination of the longitudinal implant axis of the most anterior implant was analyzed relative to the mandibular and occlusal planes. The angle needed to compensate for the inclination of the mandibular implant to obtain Angle's class I for the prosthesis (the compensation angle) was measured and compared with respect to skeletal class. Peri-implant structures were measured using the Plaque Index and the Gingival Index. The compensation angle was correlated with the mandibular implant inclination, the degree of mandibular atrophy, and the anterior facial height.The most anterior mandibular implants showed a mean retroinclination of 74.3 +/- 9.3 degrees in relation to the mandibular plane; retroinclination was significantly more pronounced in skeletal class II than skeletal classes I and III (P.05). The compensation angle (26.9 +/- 10.5 degrees) was more significant for skeletal class II than for skeletal classes I and III (P.01). Sagittal mandibular implant inclination correlated significantly to the compensation angle (r = -0.46; P.05), mandibular atrophy (r = 0.32; P.05) and mandibular facial height (r = -0.45; P.05). Implant survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bone loss, pocket-depth, Plaque and Gingival Indices) of the interforaminal implants were not shown to be influenced by implant retroinclination. Nine patients (2 skeletal class 1, 7 skeletal class II) reported phonetic problems with the IOD because of narrowing of the lingual space but described significant improvement after a median 4.7 months (range, 3 to 12 months).Depending on skeletal class, prosthetic compensatory mechanisms will be operative in the presence of mandibular implant retroinclination for IOD. Knowledge of mandibular inclinations and the compensatory mechanisms may be an essential factor in successful prosthetic rehabilitation and may provide for a homogenous design of the bar construction and easier handling and may also reduce stress on the attachment mechanism.

The survival rate of splinted and unsplinted provisional implants for anchoring removable interim overdentures, as well as handling and maintenance of the interim dentures, was evaluated.Eighteen edentulous maxillae were provided with 72 provisional implants for anchoring interim overdentures. For 10 patients, 40 unsplinted implants were used with conical copings to retain the provisional prostheses, while for 8 patients 32 implants had a splinted bar architecture for supporting the interim prostheses. Failure rate of provisional implants, as well as handling and behavior of the anchored interim overdentures, was followed until definitive prosthetic restoration and compared between groups.Eighteen (25.0%) of the 72 provisional implants were prematurely lost. The loss rate of unsplinted implants (37.5%) was significantly higher than that of splinted implants (9.3%). Patient handling and maintenance of maxillary interim overdentures during the follow-up period was found to be easier with the splinted bar-retained method than with the unsplinted prosthodontic method.Placement of provisional implants fulfilled the requirements for initiating immediate prosthetic rehabilitation and showed that removable interim overdentures can be adequately stabilized and provide added patient comfort and satisfaction. The results suggest benefits of the splinted retention modality over the unsplinted method because of advantages regarding failure rate, patient handling, and interim denture maintenance.

Purpose Rehabilitation of the incomplete dentition by means of osseointegrated dental implants represents a highly predictable and widespread therapy; however, little is known about potential risk factors that may impair long-term implant success. Methods From 2004 to 2012, a total of 13,147 implants were placed in 4,316 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna. The survival rates after 8 years of follow-up were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of patient- and implant-related risk factors was assessed. Results Overall implant survival was 97% and was not associated with implant length (P=0.930), implant diameter (P=0.704), jaw location (P=0.545), implant position (P=0.450), local bone quality (P=0.398), previous bone augmentation surgery (P=0.617), or patient-related factors including osteoporosis (P=0.661), age (P=0.575), or diabetes mellitus (P=0.928). However, smoking increased the risk of implant failure by 3 folds (P