Search

Background: There is limited evidence available regarding patient satisfaction and quality of life assessment in patients with intraoral maxillofacial defects managed with maxillofacial prostheses., Objectives: This systematic review aims to understand the impact of intraoral implant prostheses in improving the quality of life in patients with intraoral maxillofacial defects/abnormalities., Methods: A comprehensive search was performed of nine electronic databases from January 1970 to August 2022. Hand searching of the reference lists of the included papers and of relevant journal publications between 2012 and 2022 was also undertaken. Key information was extracted from included studies alongside quality and risk of bias assessments., Results: The systematic review encompassed a total of seven studies, comprising five retrospective and two prospective investigations, with one of the prospective studies being a randomised clinical trial. The evaluation of the risk of bias and quality assessment revealed heterogeneity in the results, preventing meaningful comparisons among the included studies., Conclusion: Within the limitation of the systematic review, there is limited evidence to suggest that implant prostheses improve the quality of life in patients with intraoral maxillofacial defects or abnormalities., (Copyright© 2023 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

The aim of this study was to identify mechanical complications associated with Nobel Biocare's angled screw channel (ASC) restorations following provision of the definitive crown. All ASC restorations provided between 1 January 2014 and 19 January 2016 were identified. Patients' clinical records were reviewed for demographic details, implant characteristics, occlusal considerations, and complications. A total of 84 implants placed in 60 patients were included. Three patients (4%) returned with mechanical complications, but the majority (n = 81; 96%) had no recorded complications. Long-term follow up is needed, but ASC restorations appear to offer a reliable and retrievable alternative to cement-retained restorations.

Decision-making is a fundamental aspect of clinical dentistry. Advances in technology and trends towards more conservative technologies have broadened the options available to patients and dentists, increasing the range of choices and opportunities to restore teeth. With such a broad range of dental materials, there are a number of factors to consider in making an appropriate choice. We present several decision-making dilemmas. Namely; how to restore worn lower anterior teeth, what to consider when replacing crowns, materials to consider when providing cuspal protection for posterior teeth, and finally the issues to consider when selecting a luting cement. The evidence supporting different clinical choices is considered in a discussion of the various dilemmas faced.

Introduction: Locator retained implant overdentures are associated with a high incidence of prosthodontic complications. This study investigated whether general dental practitioners (GDPs) were willing to maintain these prostheses in primary dental care., Method: A questionnaire was distributed to all GDPs referring patients for an implant assessment to the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2012., Results: Ninety-four out of one hundred and forty-six questionnaires were returned (response rate: 64%). Thirteen GDPs (14%) were able to identify the Locator attachment system from clinical photographs. Eighty-two GDPs (87%) would adjust the fit surface of a Locator retained implant overdenture. Twenty-three GDPs (25%) would replace a retentive insert, 18 GDPs (19%) would tighten a loose abutment, 68 GDPs (72%) would debride abutments and 25 GDPs (27%) would remake a Locator-retained implant overdenture. Forty-seven GDPs (50%) felt that the maintenance of these prostheses was not their responsibility. The main barriers identified to maintenance by GDPs were a lack of training, knowledge and equipment. Seventy GDPs (74%) would like further training in this area., Conclusions: GDPs are not familiar with the Locator attachment system and are reluctant to maintain implant retained overdentures. GDPs would like further training in this area.