Full-arch fixed prosthesis supported by four implants in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa

Peñarrocha‐Oltra, David; Peñarrocha-Diago, María; Balaguer-Martínez, José; Ata-Ali, Javier; Peñarrocha‐Diago, Miguel

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.03.022

Cited by 20 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature search revealed 13 publications, of which ten were clinical case series or reports of individual patients with EB and dental implants. In 28 patients with 165 implants, implant survival rates ranging between 87·5 and 100% (mean observation period 38·3 months; SD ±16·9, range 15–108 months; weighed mean implant survival rate 98·5%; SD ±2·7) were published. Table shows clinical details.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental implants in patients with oral mucosal diseases – a systematic review

Reichart

Schmidt-Westhausen

Khongkhunthian

et al. 2015

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reveal dental implants survival rates in patients with oral mucosal diseases: oral lichen planus (OLP), Sjögren's syndrome (SjS), epidermolysis bullosa (EB) and systemic sclerosis (SSc). A systematic literature search using PubMed/Medline and Embase databases, utilising MeSH and search term combinations identified publications on clinical use implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with OLP, SjS, EB, SSc reporting on study design, number, gender and age of patients, follow-up period exceeding 12 months, implant survival rate, published in English between 1980 and May 2015. After a mean observation period (mOP) of 53·9 months (standard deviation [SD] ±18·3), 191 implants in 57 patients with OLP showed a survival rate (SR) of 95·3% (SD ±21·2). For 17 patients with SjS (121 implants, mOP 48·6 ± 28·7 months), 28 patients with EB (165 implants, mOP 38·3 ± 16·9 months) and five patients with SSc (38 implants, mOP 38·3 ± 16·9 months), the respective SR was 91·7 ± 5·97% (SjS), 98·5 ± 2·7% (EB) and 97·4 ± 4·8% (SSc). Heterogeneity of data structure and quality of reporting outcomes did not allow for further comparative data analysis. For implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients suffering from OLP, SjS, EB and SSc, no evidence-based treatment guidelines are presently available. However, no strict contraindication for the placement of implants seems to be justified in patients with OLP, SjS, EB nor SSc. Implant survival rates are comparable to those of patients without oral mucosal diseases. Treatment guidelines as for dental implantation in patients with healthy oral mucosa should be followed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental implants in patients with oral mucosal diseases – a systematic review

Reichart

Schmidt-Westhausen

Khongkhunthian

et al. 2015

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vague documentation of results Jensen et al 52 Case report Bedrossian 53 Zygoma implants Khatami and Smith 54 Case report Bedrossian 55 Zygoma implants Krekmanov et al 11 Number of implants/study design Butura et al 56 Case report Menini et al 33 Literature review Cannizzaro et al 57 Study design/no survival rates reported 64 Case report, zygoma implants Penarrocha-Oltra et al 65 Literature review Graves et al 66 Zygoma implants Pomares 67 Number of implants Graves et al 68 Zygoma implants Rosen and Gynther 69 Number of implants Jensen et al 70 Case report Wu et al 71 Language 74 Number of implants/study design Penarrocha-Oltra et al 75 Not tilted/study design Astrand et al 76 Number of implants/overdentures Pieri et al 77 Number of implants Eccelente et al 78 Removable prosthesis Pomares 79 Number of implants Ekelund et al 80 Number of implants Pomares 67 Number of implants Friberg and Jemt 81 Not tilted Romanos et al 82 Removable prosthesis Heschl et al 83 Removable prosthesis Wolfinger et al 84 Number of implants/study design Li et al 85 Number of implants/study design Wu et al 71 Language…”

Section: Outcome Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review

Patzelt

Bahat

Reynolds

et al. 2013

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

157

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The available data provide promising short-term results for the all-on-four treatment approach; however, current evidence is limited by the quality of available studies and the paucity of data on long-term clinical outcomes of 5 years or greater. In terms of an evidence-based dentistry, the authors recommend further studies designed as randomized controlled clinical trials and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

show abstract

“…En tal sentido, la colocación de implantes como alternativa para la fijación de una rehabilitación mediante prótesis fija en una paciente con RDEB resultaba un desafío con pronóstico reservado. La existencia de publicaciones científicas con buenos resultados fue determinante para que los autores decidieran avanzar sobre este abordaje [3][4][5] , aprovechando las experiencias previas sobre los problemas que debieron sortear otros colegas en situaciones similares. No obstante, cada caso plantea dificultades particulares tales como el grado de apertura bucal para la instalación de los implantes, la altura y el ancho de los rebordes óseos donde serán colocados, el diseño protésico en función de los implantes seleccionados y su localización en las arcadas, además de las posibilidades para la toma de impresiones y registros con cierta fidelidad en la reproducción del terreno quirúrgico y protésico.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…En función de las necesidades extremas de la paciente, se analizó la posibilidad y luego se llevó a cabo una rehabilitación protésica mediante la fijación a implantes dentales de férulas métalo-cerámicas de arco reducido en ambas arcadas dentarias. Si bien existe evidencia de rehabilitaciones protésicas implanto soportadas en pacientes con RDEB realizadas en Europa [3][4][5] , este es el primer reporte de una experiencia llevada a cabo en Sudamérica.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Rehabilitación protésica implanto-soportada en un paciente con epidermolisis ampollar distrófica recesiva. 4 años de seguimiento clínico

Molina¹,

Torassa²,

Ribba³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rehabilitación protésica implanto-soportada en un paciente con epidermolisis ampollar distrófica recesiva. 4 años de seguimiento clínico Implant-supported dental prostheses in a patient with recessive dystrophic epidermolisis bullosa. Four-year followup.Resumen Se describe la evolución de una paciente con diagnóstico molecular de Epidermolisis Ampollar Distrófica Recesiva, quien a los 35 años de edad inicia una rehabilitación bucal mediante prótesis fija implanto-soportada, luego de haber realizado las exodoncias de las piezas remanentes en boca. Todos los implantes se mantuvieron oseointegrados a lo largo de cuatro años de seguimiento clínico y no se encontró flora periodontopática peri-implantar en los controles microbiológicos realizados. Este tipo de rehabilitación es un caso paradigmático para personas con este tipo de genodermatosis, constituyéndose en una posibilidad válida para una mejor calidad de vida frente a las circunstancias adversas que plantea la enfermedad. Palabras claves: Genodermatosis, Implantes Dentales, Rehabilitación Oral, Epidermolisis AmpollarAbstract Oral rehabilitation of a 35-years old female patient with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolisis Bullosa is described. After removal of all remaining teeth, cemented implantasisted prosthesis with shortened arches were installed over three implants in the mandible and four implants in the upper jaw. At the four-year follow up, all the implants conserved osseointegration as well as absence of peri-implantar periodontopatic biofilm was observed. The success achieved in this case becomes a paradigmatic landmark for the oral rehabilitation of patients with such genodermatoses, providing a new resource to improve their quality of life.

show abstract

Full-arch fixed prosthesis supported by four implants in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa

Cited by 20 publications

References 12 publications

Dental implants in patients with oral mucosal diseases – a systematic review

Dental implants in patients with oral mucosal diseases – a systematic review

The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review

Rehabilitación protésica implanto-soportada en un paciente con epidermolisis ampollar distrófica recesiva. 4 años de seguimiento clínico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About