Two alternative surgical techniques for enhancing primary implant stability in the posterior maxilla: a clinical study including bone density, insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis data

Background: The primary stability of dental implants associated with resistance to micromotion during healing is affected by surgical technique and implant design, which are important especially in the soft bone, where implant failures are more likely. Purposes: This study was designed to compare the parameters associated with implant insertion using two different methods of enhancing implant primary stability and to identify any relationship between these parameters at implant insertion. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 implants were placed in the maxillary posterior regions of 22 patients. The bone densities at the implant sites were recorded using a computerized tomography machine in Hounsfield unit (HU). The maximum insertion torque data were recorded with the Osseocare™ (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) equipment, while resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements were taken using an Osstell™ (Integration Diagnostics AB, Göteborg, Sweden) machine at implant surgery. Comparisons including HU, Ncm, and implant stability quotient were made between two control groups (C1 and C2), and corresponding four test groups (T1–T4) using thinner drills to enhance primary implant stability. Results: Two implants were lost, meaning an overall implant survival rate of 96.6% after 3 ± 1 years. When compared to control groups, significantly higher mean maximum insertion torque and RFA values were found for corresponding test groups. In addition, strong correlations were observed between the bone density and insertion torque, and implant stability values at implant placement. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that using thinner drills for implant placement in the maxillary posterior region where bone quality is poor may improve the primary implant stability, which helps clinicians to obtain higher implant survival rates.     

Retrospective cohort study of the clinical performance of 1-stage dental implants

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term clinical performance of 1-stage dental implant prostheses at a single clinic, emphasizing clinical and demographic characteristics that affect implant survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental records of all 308 patients (674 implants) treated with 1-stage implants at Mayo Clinic from October 1993 through May 2000 were reviewed from implant placement to last visit. Exposure and outcome variables affecting performance were collected separately to control bias in the data collection process. Additional confounding factors (age and sex) were adjusted with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Implant survival was determined by means of a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. The log-rank test was used to determine the role of clinical and demographic variables in implant survival. The relative risk associated with the possible effect of clinical and demographic variables on implant survival was estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The implant survival rate (n = 654 implants) was 97% (mean +/- SD follow-up, 21.0 +/- 18.8 months; range, 1 to 78 months). Performance bias was limited because nearly all patients were treated by 1 prosthodontist. Two implants failed after loading (6 and 9 months). The incidence of complications was less than 4%. Among the implant failures, use of heterogeneous bone graft was associated with 4.8 times more failures than was use of autogenous bone graft (P = .04). After augmentation, delaying implant placement for 5 to 6 months resulted in 8.6 times more failures than the rate after earlier placement (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Retrospective review of the clinical performance of a 1-stage dental implant system yielded a 97% survival rate, with no failures noted after 13 months. Prosthetic complications were low, especially for fixed implant prostheses. CONCLUSION: Clinical performance of 1-stage dental implant prostheses between 1993 and 2000 demonstrated a high level of predictability.     

Implants placed in combination with an internal sinus lift without graft material: an analysis of short-term failure

Aim: Investigation of the short-term survival of implants placed in combination with an internal sinus lift (ISL) without graft material.
Material and Methods: Thirty-six patients received 92 screw-shaped dental implants in combination with an ISL. No bone grafts or bone substitutes were used. Forty-four patients with 77 implants in the native posterior maxilla served as controls. X-rays taken after implant placement and 6 months later were evaluated for the presence of bone gain at the apical aspect of the implants. Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox regression analysis were used to estimate survival curves and to isolate risk factors for implant failures.
Results: Within a mean observation period of 1.2 years (minimum 9 months; maximum 3.7 years), four failures were recorded in the experimental group and two in the controls. The probability of survival was above 94% for both groups. Six–nine months after surgery, bone gain was observed in 29 out of 92 implants. Comparison of the experimental group and controls revealed no effect of ISL and membrane perforation on the probability of survival.
Conclusions: Promising short-term outcomes were observed for implants with ISL without graft material; for a substantial proportion of implants, apical bone gain was observed in the first 6–9 months.     

Private practice results of screw-type tapered implants: survival and evaluation of risk factors

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to examine the long-term survival and the prosthetic treatment outcome of screw-type, tapered implants placed in a private practice setting and to explore potential risk factors of implant failures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of patients treated with endosseous screw-type tapered implants, data relative to implant placement and failure, implant length, location, prosthetic treatment, medical history, smoking habits, and oral health behavior were gathered by chart review and questionnaire. An oral examination was also conducted. Cumulative survival rates were estimated through Kaplan-Meier methods. Comparisons between subgroups of patients were made using the log-rank statistical test. The association between several factors and implant failures was analyzed using Cox regression analyses (random and dependent models). Differences were considered significant when P < .05. RESULTS: The survival rate of 663 implants placed in 159 patients (65 men, 94 women; 80.7% of 197 eligible patients) was 91.8% after 120 months. Mandibular implants had a higher survival rate than maxillary implants (96% versus 89%, P = .011). The failure rates for implants were 15.0% among current smokers, 9.6% among former smokers, and 3.6% among nonsmokers. The differences between nonsmokers, former smokers, and current smokers were significant (nonsmokers versus former smokers: P = .036, nonsmokers versus current smokers: P < .001, former smokers versus current smokers: P = .003). Only number of years of smoking was significantly associated with an increased risk of implant failures (P = .036 using dependent estimation; P = .004 using independent estimation). The HR increased to 6.6 for patients who had smoked for 45 years. Loosening of prosthetic components were rare (n=12). No fractures of screws or implants were found. DISCUSSION: Higher failure rates for former smokers and a dose-response effect between duration of smoking and implant failure rates suggested that permanent tissue damage from smoking may occur in addition to immediate local and systemic effects. The frequency of prosthetic complications was comparable to other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Screw-type tapered implants placed in a private dental office demonstrated a cumulative survival rate of 91.8%. The relative risk of implant failure increased with the duration of smoking.     

Prospective clinical trial of dental implants in persons with ectodermal dysplasia

STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS: Ectodermal dysplasia is a hereditary condition in which hypodontia is the second most frequently occurring sign. Hypodontia is associated with lack of development of the alveolar ridge and results in less volume of bone for support of conventional prostheses. Minimal development of the alveolar ridge can affect the bone volume available for the placement of dental implants. Purpose. This clinical trial evaluated the survival of implants placed in individuals with a form of ectodermal dysplasia and severe hypodontia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty-four titanium endosteal dental implants were placed in 51 subjects: 37 males and 14 females between the ages of 8 and 68 (mean age 20.5 years, median age 16.5 years). Two hundred forty-three implants were placed in the anterior mandible, and 21 were placed in the anterior maxilla with a 2-stage surgical protocol. Either fixed-detachable dentures or bar-clip overdentures were provided. Subjects were followed up for 0 to 78 months after second-stage surgery. Kaplan-Meier survival rates and curves were produced to describe the survival of the implants for the different age groups and implant locations. Repeated-measures Cox regression models were used to evaluate the hazard ratios for age and location, with alpha=.05 as the criteria for significance. RESULTS: Of the 243 implants placed in the anterior mandible, 221 (91%) survived. Of the 21 implants placed in the anterior maxilla, 16 (76%) survived. Fourteen of the 51 (27%) subjects had a failed implant. All but 2 failures occurred before or at second-stage surgery. Implant-supported prostheses were provided for all patients. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the results support the continued use of endosteal dental implants in this patient population with appropriate precautions in the maxilla.     

Retrospective analysis of implant survival and the influence of periodontal disease and immediate placement on long-term results

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cumulative survival rates of dental implants placed in a private periodontal practice and the effects of periodontal disease and immediate placement on implant survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 149 consecutive patients. Each patient had a single implant placed. For the purpose of analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups: those who were periodontally healthy and those who had periodontal disease. Implants were placed into available bone either immediately or after a healing period. All failed implants were removed and recorded. The effects of periodontal status and placement time on implant survival were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Of the 149 implants in the study, 22 failed during the observation period. The 127 censored cases (i.e., implants that had not failed at the end of the observational period) were observed for a mean of 943 days (SD 932, range 35 to 4,030). Failed implants were observed for a mean of 722 days (SD 1,026, range 18 to 3,548). The presence of periodontal disease appeared to be associated with a greater failure rate, but there was no observed effect associated with time of placement. The percentages of censored immediate placement cases and delayed placement cases were nearly identical. Among the 77 implants associated with periodontal disease, placement time was not strongly associated with percentage censored. Forty-three of the 55 immediately placed implants (78.18%) and 18 of the 22 implants (81.18%) whose placement was delayed were censored. Both Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank tests established that survival was adversely affected by periodontal disease (P < .05) but unaffected by time of placement (P > .50). The lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit for median survival time was 3,548 days for patients without periodontal disease and 1,799 days for patients with disease. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Implant survival was compromised by a history of periodontitis but not affected by immediate or delayed placement.     

Early outcome of an implant system with a resorbable adhesive calcium–phosphate coating—a prospective clinical study in partially dentate patients

This study aims to investigate the early outcome of a dental implant with bioactive calcium-phosphate (CaP) coating in the first year of usage in different clinical indications in partially edentulous patients, after early and delayed prosthetic loading. Therefore, in a prospective follow-up study, the cumulative survival and success rate of a conical, self-drilling and self-tapping implant system after 6 months and 1 year post-insertion was evaluated. A total of 311 CaP-coated implants were placed in 124 patients. Seventy-two implants in clinical high-quality bone situation were loaded after 2 weeks post-insertion with the definite restoration; the rest after 6 months. The indication for implant placement was treatment of partial dentate mandible and maxilla. One hundred sixty-three implants were placed in the posterior mandible, 117 in the posterior maxilla. In the frontal maxilla, 25 implants and in the frontal mandible, eight implants were used. In 126 cases (36%), bone augmentation procedures (guided bone regeneration and sinus lift) were performed concomitant with implant placement. The difference between primary and secondary stability (implant stability quotient (ISQ), Periotest, insertion torque), peri-implant clinical parameter as well as survival and success criteria were evaluated. In total, ISQ mean values after 6 months were higher than after implant placement. Periotest values increased in the period of the first 6 months and remained constant afterwards. After 6 months of insertion, the mean bone loss was 0.051 mm. After 12 months, a bone gain with a mean of +0.016 mm was observed; implants in the posterior maxilla showed significant less bone resorption than implants in the posterior mandible (p < 0.0001). In the most of the implants (74%), clinical normal gingival tissue could be observed. In 24%, a mild inflammation was analysed. In 35 implants, a provocation of peri-implant bleeding was possible. In the early loading group, no implant failure was seen. Altogether, one implant in D4 bone has been lost. The cumulative survival rate summed up to 99.7%. In general, implant success assessment analysis according to Albrektsson and Buser displayed success in 99.7% of the implants. With respect to the patient selection including 124 implants with minor and major augmentations as well as early loading prosthetic function, the 1-year clinical use of the studied implant system with CaP coating showed good results, comparable to that of conventional implants without a specific coating. After 1 year, neither special disadvantages nor benefits of CaP-coated implants could be evaluated. Long-term results are further needed.     

Outcomes of dental implants placed in a surgical training programme

Background: This study evaluates surgical outcomes and survival rates of implants placed in a multidisciplinary implant teaching programme. Methods: A retrospective review of all implant surgery performed over a 6‐year period by accredited oral and maxillofacial surgery trainees at the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne was undertaken. Patients were reviewed for a minimum of 6 months post‐implant placement. Implant survival was defined as those implants which were not removed, were clinically integrated as assessed by torque testing and in an appropriate position to receive a subsequent prosthesis. Kaplan‐Meier analysis was used to assess overall survival and univariate factors affecting survival. Multivariate analysis used Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Over 6 years, 127 patients were treated. Follow‐up data were present for 105 patients with 236 implants placed. Survival of implants at 1 and 5 years was 94 per cent and 92.8 per cent, respectively. The only univariate and multivariate factor which affected implant survival was perioperative bone grafting. All failed implants were single stage. Other factors such as patient age, smoking status, implant site, anaesthetic type, immediate or delayed placement, implant length and diameter, and medical comorbidities did not significantly affect implant survival. Conclusions: A satisfactory implant survival rate was found in a tertiary teaching centre. Perioperative bone grafting significantly increased the risk of implant failure.     

Implant survival in mandibles of irradiated oral cancer patients

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze long-term implant survival in the mandible after radiotherapy and radical surgery in oral cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN: Between 1990 and 2003, 71 patients (15 females, 56 males; average age 57.8 years, range 16-84.1 years) were treated with dental implants after radiochemotherapy and ablative surgery of oral cancer. Radiation therapy was delivered in daily fractions of 2 Gy given on 25 days (total dose of 50 Gy). Oral defects were reconstructed microsurgically with jejunal, iliac crest or radial forearm grafts. Thereafter 316 dental implants were placed in the non-irradiated residual bone (84; 27%), irradiated residual bone (154; 49%) or grafted bone (78; 25%) at various intervals (mean interval 1.41 (+/- 1.01) years, range 0.34-6.35 years). RESULTS: The mean follow-up time after implant insertion was 5.42 (+/- 3.21) years (range 0.3-13.61 years). The overall 2-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates of all implants were 95%, 94%, 91% and 75%. Forty-four implants were lost in 21 patients during the observation period. Irradiation of the mandibular bone showed significantly (P = 0.0028) lower implant survival compared with non-irradiated mandibular bone. The 8-year survival rate in the non-irradiated residual bone (two loss), irradiated residual bone (29 loss) or grafted bone (13 loss) were 95%, 72% and 54%, respectively. Time of implantation after irradiation showed no statistically significant influence. Implant brand, length or diameter or the incidence of resective surgery on the mandible and gender of patients had no statistically significant influence on implant survival. CONCLUSION: Radiation therapy with 50 Gy was significantly related to shorter implant survival in mandibular bone. Survival was lowest in grafted bone. Time of implant placement had no statistically significant influence on survival under the conditions of this study. Although implant survival is lower in irradiated mandibles, implants significantly facilitate prosthodontic treatment and enhance outcome of oral rehabilitation in cancer patients.     

Correlation between placement torque and survival of single-tooth implants

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the survival parameters of single-tooth implants through clinical and radiographic analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were restored within a 24-hour period with a provisional crown designed to receive an occlusal masticatory load. This approach was compared to implants restored after a healing period (the control group). Forty-six implants were placed in 23 patients who were each treated with 2 Frialit-2 implants placed in sites between the second premolar in the maxilla or mandible. The manufacturer's recommended formal surgical procedure was followed, and primary stability was standardized with a minimum insertion torque of 20 Ncm. The sites were randomly selected, and the clinical and radiographic parameters were standardized with individual templates. RESULTS: Data were collected at 24 h, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The experimental group included 10 failed implants; 9 of the failed implants had been placed with an insertion torque of 20 Ncm. One implant from the control group failed during the 24-month follow-up period. The survival rate was independent of implant length, site position, and bone quality and quantity. Relative risk for implant failure was associated with insertion torque (relative risk 0.79 [CI: 0.66-0.930]; Cox regression) (P < or = .007), in the experimental group but was not significant for those in the control group (ie, implants placed after a healing period; relative risk 0.78 [CI: 0.34-1.78]; Cox regression) (P < or = .057). To achieve osseointegration, it was found that an insertion torque above 32 Ncm was necessary (chi2= 15.68; P < or = .004). DISCUSSION: A careful evaluation is necessary for a better understanding of the survival rates of immediately loaded implants. In this study, insertion torque was associated with the potential for risk, which can be decreased by 20% per 9.8 Ncm added. CONCLUSION: Given these results, and considering the number of patients treated, immediate provisional crowns should only be proposed with early loading if an appropriate initial insertion torque has been applied.     

Implant stability measurements for implants placed at the time of extraction: a cohort, prospective clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that implants placed at the time of extraction have high success rates. Implants must be stable at the time of insertion. Presently there are no data indicating the degree of implant stability when implants are placed at the time of extraction. This study evaluated changes in stability of implants from implant placement to abutment connection utilizing resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The unit of measurement was the international stability quotient (ISQ). METHODS: Prior to treatment, patients were given medical history and dental evaluations. Periapical and panogram radiographs were taken. Fifty-two patients requiring extraction of one or two teeth and implant placement immediately after extraction were enrolled in this study. Under conscious sedation and local anesthesia or local anesthesia alone, teeth were atraumatically removed and the extraction sockets were debrided. A total of 73 dental implants (57 in the maxilla, 16 in the mandible) were placed. Using a one-stage approach, all implants were placed within the patient's alveolar envelope and were never placed directly into extraction sockets. All implants were placed into contained extraction sites. Bone augmentation procedures were not performed. After implant insertion, the RFA electronic transducer was attached to the head of the implant with the retaining screw. The device was attached to a computer designed to register RFA scores in ISQ units. RFA measurements were taken at implant placement and abutment connection. Bone qualities, quantity, implant length and width as well as site of placement were recorded. RESULTS: The average interval between implant insertion and abutment connection was 5.6 months (SD 2.05). Two implants were lost between implant insertion and 1 year. At 2 to 3 years, the cumulative survival was 97.2%. Resonance frequency measurements at implant placement showed a mean primary stability of 62.0 (SE 1.1; range 43 to 83 ISQ) and a mean secondary stability after 1 year of 64.0 (SE 1.2; range 40 to 98 ISQ) for all implants. The increase was marginally significant (generalized estimating equation z-statistic = 1.79; P value = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Implants placed at the time of extraction and inserted into native bone and not directly into extractions sockets have a high degree of initial stability as evidenced by RFA measurements. Implants with initial high ISQ levels revealed a slight drop in levels over time, while implants with levels lower than 60 had increases in levels between implant insertion and abutment connection. At 2 to 3 years the cumulative survival rate was 97.2%.     

The effect of smoking on osseointegrated dental implants. Part II: Peri-implant bone loss

PURPOSE: The detrimental effect of cigarette smoking on implant survival has been previously demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the effect of smoking on marginal bone loss around endosseous dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 767 Br?nemark implants placed in 235 patients between 1979 and 1999. Bone level changes were determined using periapical radiographs taken at annual recall visits for 1 to 20 years following prosthesis insertion. Nonparametric tests and multiple linear regression were used to determine the influence of various factors on peri-implant bone loss during the first year of clinical loading and for all subsequent years. RESULTS: The mean annual bone loss was 0.178 mm +/- 0.401 during the first year of clinical loading and 0.066 mm +/- 0.227 per year thereafter. A positive smoking history was associated with a higher rate of peri-implant bone loss, and the majority of implant failures were observed in this group of patients. Smoking at the time of stage 1 surgery did not appear to predispose implants to more marginal bone loss. CONCLUSION: Cigarette smoking should not be an absolute contraindication for implant therapy; rather, long-term heavy smokers must be informed that they are at a slightly higher risk of late implant failure and are susceptible to more marginal bone loss over the long-term, irrespective of their smoking status at the time of implant placement.     

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants after cancer treatment

Background: Patients who undergo surgical management of oral cancer may greatly benefit from an implant‐supported prosthesis. This study reports on the clinical experience of dental implant placement in patients following resection of oral cancer over a 15‐year period. Controversies including the use of dental implants in irradiated tissues, and hyperbaric oxygen treatment will also be discussed. Methods: Thirty‐one patients who had dental implants placed as part of their oral rehabilitation between 1992 and 2007 were investigated. Demographic data and factors including implant survival, type of prosthesis provided, radiotherapy and the hyperbaric oxygen therapy were analysed. Results: In this retrospective study, there was a retention rate of 110 implants from a total of 115 implants placed. A high rate of implant retention was found, with 5 implant failures from a total of 115 implants placed. The 5 failed implants occurred in free flap bone that had been irradiated. Conclusions: Dental implants provide an important role in the oral rehabilitation of oral cancer patients. There may be an increased risk of implant failure in free flap bone that has been irradiated.     

Long-term results in placement of screw-type implants in the pterygomaxillary-pyramidal region

PURPOSE: To present the long-term results for screw-type implants consecutively placed in the pterygomaxillary-pyramidal region in the treatment of patients with posterior maxillary edentulism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-two implants were inserted in 92 partially edentulous patients using cylindric osteotomes as bone-site formers, thus minimizing the use of drills in the bone preparation. RESULTS: The 152 implants placed were loaded for an average of 89.7+/-30.7 months. There were a total of 8 failures; 6 took place between implant placement and prosthesis delivery (early failures), and 2 failed in following functional loading. The overall survival rate was 94.7%. Discussion: Cylindric osteotomes allow the surgeon to accurately place implants. The use of surgical drilling was minimized, resulting in lowered surgical risk and diminished bone loss. CONCLUSION: Implant placement in the posterior pterygomaxillary region using cylindric osteotomes for osteotomy preparation resulted in an implant survival rate of 94.7%.     

Immediate Occlusal Loading of Osseotite® Implants in Mandibular Edentulous Patients: A Prospective Observational Report with 18-Month Data

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of treatment consisting of placement and immediate occlusal loading of implants in 27 patients with edentulous mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients were treated in two private practice settings. One hundred fifty-one implants were placed and immediately occlusally loaded with fixed implant prostheses (15 cement-retained, 12 screw-retained) on the day of implant placement. The implant-retained prostheses were inserted within 5 hours of implant placement. Patients were followed for at least 18 months. The required criteria for immediate occlusal loading was primary implant stability of at least 30 Ncm of insertion torque. The implant prostheses were removed at least 12 months post-placement and the implants were evaluated for primary clinical stability and radiographic bone apposition to implants. RESULTS: At the 12-month follow-up appointments, cumulative survival rates of 98.0% and 100% were recorded for implants and prostheses, respectively. Three implants failed within 3 months. All other implants were clinically successful. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate occlusal loading of multiple, splinted mandibular implants is an effective treatment when implants are stable at insertion and are rigidly splinted with implant-retained prostheses.     

A long-term follow-up of 76 Bränemark single-tooth implants

Abstract: In a previous study ( Haas et al. 1995 ), we reported on preliminary results of 76 Brånemark implants placed in 71 patients with single‐tooth gaps. The present study examines the results of the same group over a longer period of time: 55 implants were followed for more than 5 years, 12 for a period between 4 and 5 years and 1 implant for 46 months. One patient died 3 years after implant placement. Five patients lost their implant within 24 months after insertion. The drop‐out rate was 2 implants in 2 patients. The recall rate was thus 97%. Of the 5 implant failures, 2 were located in the maxilla and 3 in the mandible. The Kaplan‐Meier survival probability was 93% after 120 months. 74% of the sites showed healthy peri‐implant soft tissue conditions. At 15 implants (22%) a bone resorption of more than 2 mm was observed on intraoral radiographs. The mean bone resorption was 1.8 mm in the maxilla and 1.3 mm in the mandible and did not increase with time (Pearson correlation coefficient: r=?0.06, P=0.59). Abutment loosening occurred in 7 implants (10%), however all abutments that were fixed with a defined torque subsequently remained stable. Thus the favourable preliminary results could be maintained over an average 66 months, indicating that if implant loss happens it seems to occur during the first 2 years after insertion.     

Staged reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible with autogenous bone graft and endosteal implants.

PURPOSE: Vastly different surgical techniques have been advocated for osseous reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible. Endosseous implants placed in autologous bone grafts have been proposed to minimize graft resorption and restore function; however, sufficient bone must exist to support the implants and prevent pathologic fracture. The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess the efficacy of autologous bone grafting and the subsequent placement of endosteal implants as a staged procedure in patients with severely atrophic mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of all patients presenting to The University of North Carolina for treatment from 1997 to 1999 with atrophic mandibles (vertical mandibular height <7 mm as measured on panoramic radiographs in at least 1 site at the mandibular midline and at the thinnest portion of the mandibular body) were reviewed. Bone height was assessed preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, at the time of implant placement (4 to 6 months), and again at 12 and 24 months after bone grafting from posterior iliac crest to the mandible via an extraoral approach. Five endosteal implants were subsequently placed in each patient as a delayed procedure 4 to 6 months after bone grafting, and prosthetic rehabilitation was completed with implant supported prostheses. RESULTS: Fourteen consecutive patients were identified with a median preoperative bone height of 9 mm (interquartile range, 25th to 75th percentile [IQ], 7 to 10 mm) in the mandibular midline and 5 mm (IQ, 2 to 5 mm) in the body region. There were no perioperative complications. Median estimated blood loss during the bone graft procedure, as estimated by the surgeon and the anesthesiologist, was 300 mL (IQ, 150 to 1,100 mL), and 1 patient required blood transfusion secondary to symptomatic anemia. The mean loss of vertical bone height after grafting and during the 4 to 6 months before implant placement was 33%. After implant placement and at 12 months, the vertical bone loss was negligible in the implant-supported region and less than 11% in the body region. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible using autogenous corticocancellous bone grafts followed by placement of osseointegrated implants in 4 to 6 months can restore and maintain mandibular bone sufficient to support implants and facilitate successful restoration of occlusion. A prospective study is planned to identify predictors of successful outcomes compared with other surgical/prosthetic treatment.     

Horizontal alveolar transport distraction osteogenesis followed by implant placement

Alveolar transport distraction osteogenesis (ATDO) is an alternative treatment method to vertical alveolar distraction osteogenesis in cases of large bony defects, especially when the bone is limited in size. ATDO was performed in 10 patients with 12 defects. The mean age of the patients was 39.1 years. The average bone length gain was 18.2 mm. Implants were inserted following a 3-month consolidation period. Three patients needed additional bone grafting for horizontal widening. Final prosthetic rehabilitation was performed at least 3 months following implant insertion. The mean follow-up period was 63 months and the survival rate of the 25 implants placed was 92%. All failures (n = 2) occurred during the early healing period. Although the results are not totally predictable, it can be concluded that ATDO can be effective in the reconstruction of the alveolar crest prior to implant placement.     

One-year prospective three-center study comparing the outcome of a "soft bone implant" (prototype Mk IV) and the standard Brånemark implant

Background: Oral implant treatment ad modum Brånemark has been used for decades in the rehabilitation of edentate and partially dentate patients. Posterior jaw regions frequently exhibit bone of poor texture, and it is often difficult to obtain primary stability. Thus, it may prove beneficial to deviate from the original protocol and to use implants with a modified design, for example, with a slightly tapered geometry. Purpose: The purpose of the investigation was to compare the early behavior of a modified (prototype Mk IV, Branemark System, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden; test) implant with that of the standard Brånemark implant (control) in regions of mainly type 4 bone. Materials and Methods: Three Swedish centers participated, and a total of 44 patients were treated with oral implants for 39 maxillas and 5 mandibles. The study focused on the most distal right and left implant sites (88 implants), which were randomized to receive either a test or a control implant. Various parameters were recorded, such as registered insertion torque (OsseoCare, Nobel Biocare AB), wobbling during insertion, primary and secondary stability (as measured with resonance frequency), and marginal bone loss. The implants were followed up for 1 year. Results.: The test implant more frequently required a higher insertion torque and showed a significantly higher primary stability than the control implant. This difference in stability leveled out over time, and test and control implants exhibited similar secondary stability at abutment operation and at the 1‐year visit. Wobbling during insertion was rarely recorded for either of the implant designs. The 1‐year cumulative success rate was 93.1% for test implants and 88.4% for control implants. Conclusions: The modified implant design resulted in an increased primary stability, which may be important when placing implants in jaw regions of type 4 bone. However, independent of the achieved primary stability, successful implants tended to approach similar secondary stability in the two designs tested.