(1) Objectives: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in previously failed sites and discussed the risk factors that mattered in reimplantation. (2) Methods: All the cases by one specific implantologist during his first five years of clinical practice were screened, with a focus on those who received reimplantation. The clinical outcomes were assessed, including the implant survival, peri-implant health, and patients’ satisfaction. (3) Results: 28 patients (31 implants) were recorded as failures from 847 patients (1269 implants), with a 2.4% overall failure rate at the implant level, of whom 19 patients (21 implants) received reimplantation treatment. After a mean follow-up of 33.7 ± 10.1 months (95% CI 29.1–38.3 months), 20 implants remained functional, but 1 implant revealed a secondary early failure, indicating a 95.2% overall survival rate. The mean probing depth (PD), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), and marginal bone loss (MBL) of the surviving reinserted implants were 2.7 ± 0.6 mm (95% CI 2.5–3.0 mm), 0.7 ± 0.5 (95% CI 0.5–1.0), and 0.5 ± 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.3–0.8 mm), respectively. Embedded healing occurred more frequently in the reinserted implants than in the primary implants (p = 0.052). The patients’ satisfaction suffered from implant failure, but a successful reimplantation could reverse it with close doctor–patient communication. (4) Conclusions: Reimplantation treatment was recommended, based on a thorough evaluation and consideration of the risk factors combined with effective communication with the patients.
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscope‐controlled sinus floor augmentation through a mini‐lateral window, compared with traditional lateral window approach.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective research included 19 patients and 20 augmented sinuses using lateral window approach with simultaneous implant placement (test group: a 3–4 mm round osteotomy; control group: a 10 × 8 mm rectangular osteotomy). Preoperatively (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6 months postoperatively (T2), cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained. Residual bone height (RBH), lateral window dimension (LWD), endo‐sinus bone gain (ESBG), apical bone height (ABH), and bone density were measured. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Patients' evaluation of pain first day after surgery and a week later was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS).ResultsNo significant difference was found in ESBG, ABH between the two groups at T1, T2 or their changes from T1 to T2. However, the increase of bone density value in the test group was significantly higher than control group (356.28 ± 149.59 vs. 242.99 ± 129.54; p < 0.05). The sinus perforation rate of test and control group was 10% and 20%, respectively. The VAS score of the test group at the first day after surgery was significantly lower than control group (4.20 ± 1.03 vs. 5.60 ± 1.71; p < 0.05).ConclusionsEndoscope‐controlled maxillary sinus floor augmentation through a mini‐lateral window yield similar result with traditional approach in terms of bone height gain. The modified approach could facilitate new bone formation, reducing sinus perforation rate and postoperative pain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.