Oral Rehabilitation of Hypodontia Patients Using an Endosseous Dental Implant: Functional and Aesthetic Results

Attia, Sameh; Schaaf, Helmut; Khassawna, Thaqif El; Malhan, Deeksha; Mausbach, Katharina; Howaldt, Hans‐Peter; Streckbein, Philipp

doi:10.3390/jcm8101687

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is also in accordance with another retrospective study from France, which reported on satisfaction 10-16 years after implantation [24]. Sligthly lower subjective satisfaction of patients were found in a retrospective study from Germany with 37 hypodontia patients recruited 0.5-16 years after implantation, however the results were then improved by using objective assessments [33]. Despite of the small sample size of patients with implant-supported removable prostheses in our study (only five patients), a great OHRQoL among the patients with implant-supported removable prostheses could also be confirmed, even though none of the removable prostheses were free from clinical complications and require more prosthetic maintenance [34].…”

Section: Patient Satisfactionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implant survival and implant success (freedom of biologic complications) are important factors in assessing the success of implant therapy. However, these factors are not the only determinants. Patients’ satisfaction also plays a very important role in daily practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patients’ satisfaction regarding function (phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability) and aesthetics in patients treated with XiVE and Frialite implants in a private periodontal practice ten years after implant placement. Furthermore, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated. Methods Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding overall satisfaction, phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability, and aesthetics were examined on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 10 years ± 6 months after implant placement in a cross-sectional survey. OHRQoL and psychological impact were assessed via the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ). Potential influence of patient-related factors (age, gender, smoking, peri-implantitis, implant position, type of restoration) on VAS, OHRQoL and PIDAQ were investigated using regression analyses. Results High satisfaction with implant-supported restorations was seen in all 95 patients ten years after implant placement. Mean VAS-score for general satisfaction with implant-supported restoration was 93.0% (SD ± 9.4, median: 96.3%, range 50.0–100%). Mean OHIP score was 11.3 (SD ± 10.8, median: 9.0, range 0–45), mean PIDAQ score 20.5 (SD ± 11.37, median: 17.0, range 0–52). A slight tendency that presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis lowers satisfaction could be detected (overall satisfaction: ordinal, p = 0.012, VAS, p = 0.026). Also, the factors age, implant position and type of restoration might have an impact on patient’s satisfaction. Conclusions Patients restored with mostly fixed implant-supported restorations showed a very high patient satisfaction regarding function and aesthetics 10-year after implant placement. The presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis showed a slight tendency for influencing patient satisfaction. Due to the cross-sectional design results have to be interpreted with care.

show abstract

Section: Patient Satisfactionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To calculate the survival rate, the existing implants were noted during the clinical examination and the number and time of removed implants were documented. Since implant survival is not equivalent to implant success [33,34], success criteria of Buser et al [30] and Albrektsson et al [29] were evaluated in this study. Albrektsson et al defined dental implant success as a state of no clinical implant mobility or radiographic radiolucency, annual vertical bone loss of less than 0.2 mm after the first year post surgery, and absence of irreversible symptoms such as pain, infection, neuropathy, paranesthesia or mandibular canal injury [29].…”

Section: Study Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

Attia

Narberhaus

Schaaf

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The atrophic maxilla often requires bone augmentation before implant placement to ensure long-term implant success. A previous prospective clinical trial examined the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) during maxillary augmentation. The short-term results showed no positive effect of PRP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the same patient collective of the previous study regarding the PRP long-term impact on the survival and success of dental implants. Fifty-three patients from the previous study diagnosed with maxillary atrophy and augmented with autologous bone grafts from the iliac crest and dental implants, were included in this study. Treatment was carried out on both sides in 34 patients with a split-mouth-design in which one randomly chosen side was treated additionally with PRP, the other side was the control-side. Nineteen patients were treated only on one side and were assigned to the PRP—or the control group randomly. Implant follow-up of the patients from the previous study was performed after an average time of 13 years. Implant success was evaluated using two different success criteria. Thitry-seven patients (25 women and 12 men) were investigated in this study. Seventeen patients (12 female, 5 male) were included in the PRP group, while 20 patients (13 female, 7 male) participated in the control group. A total of 210 implants were inserted. Of these, 102 implants (48.57%) were placed in the PRP group and 108 implants (51.42%) in the control group. Out of 102 investigated implants in the PRP group, 6 were removed (survival rate 94.1%). While two of the 108 implants in the control group were loss (survival rate 98.1%). In the PRP group, the cumulative probability of survival after 15.1 years was 94.1% and in the control group, was 98.1%, with no significant difference between the two groups. Higher significant difference for the control group was found in the cumulative success probability using Albrektson criteria (p = 0.05). Positive impact of PRP on long-term implant survival and success could not be found.

show abstract

“…The variance of 35.7 to 98.7% is explained by the inclusion of studies performed in children (< 15 years old) with lower bone quantity and thus a higher risk for DIT failure rate. In another study, patients with hypodontia and oligodontia showed high satisfaction and masticatory function (69.4%), high phonetic ability (80.6%), and high implant success (88.4%) according to Albrektsson criteria [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Outcomes of dental implants in young patients with congenital versus non-congenital missing teeth

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This cross-sectional study aims to investigate the effect of the cause of missing teeth on the survival and subjective success of dental implant treatment (DIT) in young patients with missing teeth due to non-congenital causes (tooth loss) in comparison to patients with missing teeth because of congenital causes (hypodontia and oligodontia). Material and methods All patients were asked 7 questions to extract information about the survival and subjective success of DIT. Implant survival function was designed using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Differences in implant success outcomes were studied using binary logistic regression analysis. Results One hundred ten patients aged 18 to 40 years old were included, whereof 32 patients with tooth loss, 25 patients with hypodontia and 53 patients with oligodontia. In the tooth loss group, implant survival reached 96.9%; in the hypodontia group 96.0%; and in the oligodontia group 88.7%. Regarding subjective implant success, patient satisfaction was significantly higher (p < 0.040) among patients with congenital missing teeth in comparison to patients with tooth loss. Other implant success components showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.050) between the groups. Conclusion The cause of missing teeth does not influence implant survival. However, the cause of missing teeth does have a significant impact on patient satisfaction (implant success), ascertaining young patients with congenital missing teeth as more satisfied of DIT than young patients with tooth loss. Clinical relevance Young patients with tooth agenesis and with an increased number of missing teeth are more content about the treatment with dental implants than patients with tooth loss. Furthermore, a consensus regarding the assessment of implant success is an essential concern for clarification.

show abstract

Oral Rehabilitation of Hypodontia Patients Using an Endosseous Dental Implant: Functional and Aesthetic Results

Cited by 16 publications

References 46 publications

Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement

Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

Outcomes of dental implants in young patients with congenital versus non-congenital missing teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About