Dimensional changes of buccal bone in the edentulous maxilla with telescopic-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

Oda, Yukinobu; Mori, Gentaro; Sasaki, Hodaka; Ito, Taichi; Iijima, Takashi; Sekine, Hideshi; Yajima, Yasutomo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.006

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The dominant study design was the prospective cohort (PC; Cardaropoli et al, 2006;Covani et al, 2004;Farronato et al, 2020;Nohra et al, 2018;Schwarz et al, 2012;Spray et al, 2000;Temmerman et al, 2015), followed by the randomized clinical trial (RCT; Barone et al, 2015;Jung et al, 2017;Li Manni et al, 2020;Marconcini et al, 2018; Table 3). Only one retrospective cohort (RC) study (Oda et al, 2021) was included. Overall, 3237 sites were the methods used to assess the alveolar bone dimension at baseline.…”

Section: Clinical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri‐implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review

Monje

Roccuzzo

Buser

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The significance on the association between the peri-implant buccolingual dimension (BLD) at the stage of implant placement and the occurrence of biological and esthetic complications is yet unknown.Material and methods: Systematic screening of electronic sources was carried out to identify clinical and preclinical studies reporting on the baseline BLD and/or buccal bone thickness (BBT) values. A secondary objective was to assess the effect of simultaneous grafting at sites with deficient or no buccal bone wall (BBW) at baseline. The primary outcome variables were BBT, BLD, and buccal vertical bone loss (VBL) at reevaluation. Moreover, radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated.Results: Overall, 12 clinical and four preclinical studies met the inclusion criteria.Inconsistencies were found in defining the critical BBT across the clinical and preclinical data evaluated. The clinical evidence demonstrated that during healing, dimensional changes occur in the alveolar bone and in the BBW that may compromise the integrity of the peri-implant bone, leading to VBL and mucosal recession (MR), particularly in scenarios exhibiting a thin BBW. The preclinical evidence validated the fact that implants placed in the presence of a thin BBW, are more prone to exhibit major dimensional changes and VBL. Moreover, the clinical data supported that, in scenarios where dehiscence-type defects occur and are left for spontaneous healing, greater VBL and MR together with the occurrence of biologic complications are expected.Furthermore, the augmentation of dehiscence-type defects is associated with hard and soft tissue stability. PROMs were not reported.Conclusions: Dimensional changes occur as result of implant placement in healed ridges that may lead to instability of the peri-implant hard and soft tissues. Sites presenting a thin BBW are more prone to exhibit major changes that may compromise the integrity of the buccal bone and may lead to biologic and esthetic complications.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri‐implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review

Monje

Roccuzzo

Buser

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dominant study design was the prospective cohort (PC; Cardaropoli et al, 2006; Covani et al, 2004; Farronato et al, 2020; Nohra et al, 2018; Schwarz et al, 2012; Spray et al, 2000; Temmerman et al, 2015), followed by the randomized clinical trial (RCT; Barone et al, 2015; Jung et al, 2017; Li Manni et al, 2020; Marconcini et al, 2018; Table 3). Only one retrospective cohort (RC) study (Oda et al, 2021) was included. Overall, 3237 sites (implants) were included and evaluated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies presented ranges instead of mean values (Barone et al, 2016;Farronato et al, 2020;Marconcini et al, 2018;Nohra et al, 2018;Temmerman et al, 2015). Overall, seven studies provided data referring to VBL or BBT at re-assessment (Cardaropoli et al, 2006;Jung et al, 2017;Li Manni et al, 2020;Nohra et al, 2018;Oda et al, 2021;Schwarz et al, 2012;Spray et al, 2000) when compared to implants displaying BBT ≥2 mm. One study (Jung et al, 2017) further demonstrated progressive VBL of 0.17 mm when a dehiscence-like defect of 3.2 mm was left for spontaneous nonassisted healing.…”

Section: Clinical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri‐implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review

Monje,

Roccuzzo,

Buser

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe significance on the association between the peri‐implant bucco‐lingual dimension (BLD) at the stage of implant placement and the occurrence of biological and esthetic complications is yet unknown.Material and methodsSystematic screening of electronic sources was carried out to identify clinical and preclinical studies reporting on the baseline BLD and/or buccal bone thickness (BBT) values. A secondary objective was to assess the effect of simultaneous grafting at sites with deficient or no buccal bone wall (BBW) at baseline. The primary outcome variables were BBT, BLD, and buccal vertical bone loss (VBL) at re‐evaluation. Moreover, radiographic, clinical, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated.ResultsOverall, 12 clinical and four preclinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Inconsistencies were found in defining the critical BBT across the clinical and preclinical data evaluated. The clinical evidence demonstrated that during healing, dimensional changes occur in the alveolar bone and in the BBW that may compromise the integrity of the peri‐implant bone, leading to VBL and mucosal recession (MR), particularly in scenarios exhibiting a thin BBW. The preclinical evidence validated the fact that implants placed in the presence of a thin BBW, are more prone to exhibit major dimensional changes and VBL. Moreover, the clinical data supported that, in scenarios where dehiscence‐type defects occur and are left for spontaneous healing, greater VBL and MR together with the occurrence of biologic complications are expected. Furthermore, the augmentation of dehiscence‐type defects is associated with hard and soft tissue stability. PROMs were not reported.ConclusionsDimensional changes occur as result of implant placement in healed ridges that may lead to instability of the peri‐implant hard and soft tissues. Sites presenting a thin BBW are more prone to exhibit major changes that may compromise the integrity of the buccal bone and may lead to biologic and esthetic complications.

show abstract

“…Higher load values were required for the fracture (7672 N), even with distal extensions with a shorter length [32] and larger occlusal-cervical size (10 mm), while distal extensions with a greater length (17 mm) and smaller occlusal-cervical size [36] fractured once a load of 1543 N was reached [37]. Even though those load values are much higher than the "normal" masticatory loads found in the oral cavity, the normal average peaks at 762 N (in the male molar region, it has an average of 624 N with a peak of 847 N; in females, an average of 537 N with a peak of 613 N) and reaches 806 N in patients with bruxism [37][38][39].…”

Section: Mechanical/structural Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limmer et al's [26] study reported a single fracture of the structure in a distal extension. These fractures are related to the length of the distal extension, which received excessive tension in the zirconia, causing consequent fracture [36]. According to Durkan's study [31], a maximum of 9 mm of distal extension is recommended with 30 • angled implants, reducing stresses on the bone and zirconia.…”

Section: Mechanical/structural Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Success and Complications of Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Monolithic Zirconia Restorations: A Systematic Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In full-arch rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed prostheses, using monolithic zirconia seems to have several advantages regarding function and esthetics. However, the current scientific evidence is still limited. Thus, the aim of this investigation was to systematically review the literature on monolithic zirconia restorations for full-arch rehabilitation, particularly pursuing the survival rate and mechanical and biological complications. This study’s protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022301799). The primary literature search was performed in PubMed/MedLine and Web of Science, and a manual search was performed (checking cross-references). The focused question was, “In an adult population with one or both edentulous arches (P), the oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed-monolithic zirconia (full arch) (I), compared with oral rehabilitation using fixed-metal-ceramic prosthesis on implants (C), did show superior clinical results (O) in a minimum follow-up of 1 year (T)?” Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Joana Briggs Institute tools were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed for the variable survival rate (%), applying the specific continuous moderator (follow-up). Data heterogeneity (I2) was assessed. From the initial search, 327 references were obtained. After eliminating duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria by reading the titles, abstracts, and full text, seven articles were included. All included articles were observational longitudinal retrospective studies, with a number of prostheses between 7 and 2039. The mean age was 60 years, and the mean follow-up was 49.7 months. They had mandibular, maxillary, or bimaxillary rehabilitations, always with screw-retained retention, with an average survival rate of 97.23%. The number of implants ranged between four and eight. The quality of the articles was over 70%, and the heterogeneity was considered low (I2 = 28.64%). Within a mean follow-up of around four years, full-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia rehabilitations had a high survival rate and minimal complications.

show abstract

Dimensional changes of buccal bone in the edentulous maxilla with telescopic-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri‐implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review

Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri‐implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review

Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri‐implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review

The Success and Complications of Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Monolithic Zirconia Restorations: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About