The esthetic component is critical for the successful outcome and patients' satisfaction regarding the implant-prosthetic therapy. The esthetic outcome success depends mostly on the optimization of the algorithms specific to the pro-implant and implant stage as well as to the designing and technological execution of the future prosthetic restoration. A proper planning of optimal facial esthetics must involve a multidisciplinary approach with inclusion of periodontists, orthodontists, oral surgeons and implantology specialists. The dental practitioner must consider various factors that influence the esthetic outcome (tooth position, root position of the adjacent teeth, biotype of the periodontium, tooth shape, smile line, implant site anatomy, implant positioning). Also, some factors (anatomical limits of the implant site, periodontal status, occlusal parameters), which can alter the final esthetic result, must be assessed prior to planning the esthetic parameters of the future prosthetic restoration. The esthetic outcome can be improved by using new digital technologies based on software applications for assessment of clinical and biological indices of the prosthetic field, virtual planning of implants positioning and design projection of future prosthetic restoration.
The goals of this research are: (1) to compare the survival and prosthetic success of metal-ceramic 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; (2) to evaluate the influence of several risk factors on the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). A total of 68 patients with posterior short edentulous spaces (mean age 61.00 ± 1.325 years), were divided into two groups: 3-unit tooth-supported FPDs (40 patients; 52 FPD; mean follow-up 10.27 ± 0.496 years) and 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (28 patients; 32 FPD; mean follow-up 8.656 ± 0.718 years). Pearson-chi tests were used to highlight the risk factors for the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported FPDs and multivariate analysis was used to determine significant risk predictors for the prosthetic success of the tooth-supported FPDs. The survival rates of 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs were 100% and 87.5%, respectively, while the prosthetic success was 69.25% and 68.75%, respectively. The prosthetic success of tooth-supported FPDs was significantly higher for patients older than 60 years (83.3%) vs. 40–60 years old (57.1%) (p = 0.041). Periodontal disease history decreased the prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs when compared with the absence of periodontal history (45.5% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.001; 33.3% vs. 90%, p = 0.002). The prosthetic success of 3-unit tooth- vs. implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene in our study. In conclusion, similar rates of prosthetic success were recorded for both types of FPDs. In our study, prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene; however, history of periodontal disease is a significant negative predictor of success in both groups when compared with patients without periodontal history.
Considered as one of the most common traumatic injuries of the maxillofacial region, mandibular fractures remain among the complex causes of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). Due to the complexity of the temporomandibular joint, the management of TMDs represents a challenge in real-life practice; although many treatment modalities have already been proposed, ranging from conservative options to open surgical procedures, a consensus is still lacking in many aspects. Furthermore, despite continuous improvement of the management of mandible fractures, the duration of immobilization and temporary disability is not reduced, and the incidence of complications remains high. The aim of the present study is to (i) review anatomophysiological components of temporomandibular joint; (ii) review concepts of temporomandibular joint fractures; and (iii) describe methods of the recovery of the temporomandibular joint after mandibular fracture immobilization.
The purpose of our study was to analyze the influence of Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-15Zr dental implants, with complex implant designs, on the cortical and trabecular mandibular bone in regards to the stress value and its distribution using finite element analysis. A total of four 3D implant assemblies were modeled, each consisting of implant, abutment, abutment screw, cement layer, and ceramic crown. Implants were modeled with different macrostructure designs with focus on the main thread and microthread design as well as complex geometry details. All implants were inserted in the second molar position in the mandible bone section, consisting of two macro-structures, a 2 mm thick cortical bone and an internal cancellous bone. Results revealed that small variations in the implant design led to a great difference in the stress values and distribution in both cortical and cancellous bone. Our results suggest no major difference between Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-15Zr in regards to the material�s ability to decrease stress in the periimplant bone. However, within the same material, results revealed important differences between thread design and implant geometry concerning the stress values and stress concentration in cortical and cancellous bone in the mandibular model.
Aim: Study aimed to test whether implants inserted in posterior mandible sites augmented with screw-guided bone regeneration (S-GBR) technique differ from implants placed in non-grafted sites regarding the success and survival rate. Materials and Methods: 20 edentulous patients (mean age 59.45 ± 15.220) were divided in a test group (S-GBR) (immediate implants placed simultaneously with grafting procedures) and control group (implants placed in naturally healed sites). Primary outcomes (implants success; implants survival) and secondary outcomes (clinical parameters of soft tissues: mPI; mGI; probing depth; keratinized mucosa; marginal-bone-level) were evaluated at 24-months follow-up. Results: Plaque levels were higher (p = 0.046) in S-GBR group (0.97 ± 0.882 mm) when compared with control (0.66 ± 0.695 mm). Keratinized mucosa width was higher in S-GBR group (4.13 ± 1.033 mm) than control (3.34 ± 0.821 mm) (p = 0.000) Probing depth (PD) width was higher in S-GBR group (3.50 ± 1.372 mm) than control (2.56 ± 1.332 mm) (p = 0.000). mGI was higher among implants placed in S-GBR group (0.90 ± 1.020 mm) than control (0.56 ± 0.794 mm) (p = 0.061). The difference between the average bone loss (MBL) for implants placed in grafted sites (Group S-GBR: 2.20 ± 1.867 mm) and for those placed in naturally healed sites (Group B: 1.09 ± 1.678 mm) was statistically significant (p = 0.000). The overall implant success rate after 24-month follow-up was 76.7% in S-GBR group and 90.6% in control group (p = 0.001). The survival rate after 24-month follow-up was 86.7% in S-GBR group and 93.8% in control group (p = 0.182). The reconstruction of the alveolar bone using S-GBR technique and immediate implant placement is a valid guided bone regeneration strategy for mandibular alveolar bone with severe horizontal resorption. The choice of S-GBR technique should be based on specific indications as implants placed in grafted sites recorded worse marginal success rate, survival rate and bone resorption than those placed in non-grafted sites.
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.