The results of this radiographic research suggested that implantoplasty was an effective treatment of peri-implant infections and peri-implantitis progression.

Implants with a small diameter may be used where bone width is reduced or in single-tooth gaps with limited mesiodistal space, such as for the replacement of lateral maxillary or mandibular incisors. The purpose of the present longitudinal study was to compare the prognosis of narrow implants (3.3-mm-diameter) to standard (4.1-mm-diameter) implants. Over a 7-year period, 122 narrow implants were inserted in 68 patients to support 45 partial fixed prostheses (PFD) and 23 single-tooth prostheses (ST). Furthermore, 120 patients received 208 standard implants and were restored with 70 PFD and 50 ST, respectively. Clinical and radiographic assessment data were provided. Six (1.8%) out of 330 implants failed. Cumulative survival and success rates were calculated with life-table analyses processed by collecting clinical and radiographic data. For narrow implants, the cumulative survival rate was 98.1% in the maxilla and 96.9% in the mandible. The cumulative success rate was 96.1% in the maxilla and 92% in the mandible. Conversely, standard-diameter implants showed a cumulative survival rate of 96.8% in the maxilla and 97.9% in the mandible. The cumulative success rate was 97.6% in the maxilla and 93.8% in the mandible. Cumulative survival and success rates of small-diameter implants and standard-diameter implants were not statistically different (P > 0.05). Type 4 bone was a determining failure factor, while marginal bone loss was not influenced by the different implant diameters. The results suggest that small-diameter implants can be successfully used in the treatment of partially edentulous patients.

The purpose of the following study was to evaluate the medium- to long-term prognosis of implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses, and to establish to what degree this is influenced by factors such as length, type of cantilever (mesial or distal), and opposite dentition versus cantilever prostheses. This study was performed on a sample of 38 partially edentulous patients treated between January 1994 and March 2001 with 49 partial cantilever fixed prostheses supported by 100 implants. Marginal bone resorption (MBL) has been studied and used as a reference parameter to define therapeutic success. The MBL measurement was made possible by transposing X-ray images of patients selected on a PC and then using a software program. Statistical analysis was carried out for possible correlation between peri-implant bone resorption and the parameters considered in this study: length and type (mesial or distal) of cantilever and opposite dentition to cantilever prostheses. Seven years after loading cantilever prostheses, the overall cumulative implant survival rate (OCSR) was 97%, and the prostheses success rate is 98%. Mesial cantilever prostheses registered a lower success rate (97.1%) than distal cantilever prostheses (100%). Furthermore, a better prognosis was not observed when the opposite dentition of the prostheses comprised natural teeth, or fixed prostheses on natural teeth, when compared with the cases in which opposite teeth were implant-supported fixed prostheses. The authors concluded that medium-term prognosis of implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses and traditional implant-supported fixed prostheses was comparable. However, a thorough pre-treatment analysis of risk factors regarding implant-supported prosthesis survival is important.

One hundred and eight-seven ITI implants were prospectively followed from November 1992 to July 2000, in order to evaluate the clinical efficiency and the long-term prognosis in 109 partially edentulous patients (69 women and 40 men; average age 41.3 years). Of these 187 implants, 69.5% were placed in the mandible and 30.5% in the maxilla. After a healing period that ranged from three to six months, the osseointegrated implants (n = 184) were restored with single crowns. Three implants were extracted prior to loading the fixture and were considered early failures. Each implant was reassessed on a yearly basis, both clinically and radiographically. The results of the investigation, which were evaluated according to predefined success criteria, were reviewed in accordance with a life table method. During the follow-up, six cases were deemed to be late failures. In each of these cases, a suppurative infection of the peri-implant tissue was diagnosed: in one implant, the infection could not be eradicated and the implant was removed. When 11 drop-outs were included in the analysis, the cumulative survival and success rates for the whole sample group were 96.77% and 93.6%, respectively. When only prosthetically loaded implants were considered, the results increased to 99.35% for the cumulative survival rate and 96.18% for the cumulative success rate. The analysis on disaggregated data showed better results for maxillary restorations (survival rate 100%) in comparison to mandible restorations (survival rate 95.11%). It was concluded that, under standard anatomic conditions (bone site height > 8 mm, thickness > 6 mm), prosthetic restoration of partially edentulous patients with the ITI system can be described as a reliable and efficient therapy in the long term.

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical outcome of two different surgical approaches for the treatment of peri-implantitis. Seventeen patients with ITI(R) implants were included consecutively over a period of 5 years. The patients were randomized with a lottery assignment. Ten patients were treated with resective surgery and modification of surface topography (test group). The remaining seven patients were treated with resective surgery only (control group). Clinical parameters (suppuration, modified plaque index - mPI, modified bleeding index - mBI, probing pocket depth - PPD, pseudopocket - DIM, mucosal recession - REC, probing attachment level - PAL) were recorded at baseline, as well as 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after treatment. The cumulative survival rate for the implants of the test group was 100% after 3 years. After 24 months, two hollow-screw implants of control group were removed because of mobility. Consequently, the cumulative survival rate was 87.5%. The recession index in the control group was significantly lower than in the test group at 24 months (Student's t-value of -2.14). On the contrary, control group showed higher PPD, PAL and mBI indexes than test group (Student's t-values of +5.5, +2.4 and +9.61, respectively). The PPD and mBI indexes for the implants of the control group were significantly higher at baseline than 24 months later (Student's t-values of +3.18 and +3.33, respectively). Recession and PAL indexes resulted in values significantly lower than baseline (Student's t-values of -4.62 and -2.77, respectively). For the implants of the test group PPD and mBI indexes were significantly higher at baseline than 36 months after (Student's t-values of +11.63 and +16.02, respectively). Recession index resulted in values significantly lower at baseline (Student's t-value of -5.05). No statistically significant differences were found between PAL index measurement at baseline and 36 months later (Student's t-value of +0.89). In conclusion, resective therapy associated with implantoplasty seems to influence positively the survival of oral implants affected by inflammatory processes.