Clinical success of implant-supported and tooth–implant-supported double crown-retained dentures

The objective of this retrospective study was to compare biological and technical complications of implant-supported and tooth-implant-supported double crown-retained dentures (DCRDs) with those of tooth-supported DCRDs. Sixty-three DCRDs were monitored. One study group included 16 prostheses with a combination of implants and natural teeth as double crowns (ti group), whereas in the second study group, 19 dentures were retained exclusively on implants (ii group); a third study group with 28 exclusively tooth-supported dentures served as controls (tt group). Tooth loss, implant failure, and technical complications (loss of retention of primary crown, abutment screw loosening, loss of facing, fracture of resin denture teeth and fracture of saddle resin) were analysed. During the observation period of 24 months, no implants or teeth were lost in the ti group and three technical complications were recorded. In the ii group, two implants were lost, two cases of peri-implantitis occurred and four technical complications were observed. In the tt group, two cases of tooth loss and seven technical complications were observed. At the time of the last examination, all prostheses of the ti group and the ii group were functional. Patients of these two study groups reported high satisfaction with both function and aesthetics with no significant difference between the two groups. Treatment with DCRDs showed comparable results in the three study groups. The 2-year results indicate that double crowns can be recommended for implant and combined tooth-implant-retained dentures.     

Effects of fast- and slow-setting calcium silicate–based root-end filling materials on the outcome of endodontic microsurgery: a retrospective study up to 6 years

Clinical Oral Investigations - The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the effects of fast- and slow-setting calcium silicate–based materials (CSMs) used for...     

Intra‐oral pattern of tooth and periodontal bone loss between the age of 50 and 60 years. A longitudinal prospective study

Objective: In a 10‐year prospective study we analyzed (i) the intra‐oral pattern of and (ii) potential risk factors for tooth and periodontal bone loss in 50‐year‐old individuals. Methods: A randomized subject sample of 50‐year‐old inhabitants in the County of Värmland, Sweden, was examined at baseline and after 10 years. Data from full‐mouth clinical and radiographic examinations and questionnaire surveys of 309 (72%) of the individuals who were dentate at baseline were available for analysis. Non‐parametric tests and binary logistic multiple regression models were used for statistical analysis of the data. Results: 4.1% of the 7,101 teeth present at baseline, distributed among 39% of the subjects, were lost during the 10‐year interval. The incidence of tooth loss was highest among mandibular molars (7.5%) and lowest among canines (1.8%). The relative risk (RR) for tooth loss for endodontically compromised teeth was 4.1 and for furcation‐involved molars 2.4–6.5, depending on tooth position. Logistic regression analysis identified baseline alveolar bone level (ABL), endodontic conditions, CPITN score (Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs), tooth position, caries, and educational level as risk factors for tooth loss. The overall mean 10‐year ABL change was ?0.54?mm (S.E. 0.01). On a tooth level the ABL change varied between ?0.35?mm (mandibular molars) and ?0.79?mm (mandibular incisors). Smokers experienced a greater (20–131% depending on tooth type) mean bone loss than non‐smokers. The logistic regression model revealed that tooth position, smoking, and probing pocket depth ≥4?mm were risk factors for bone loss of >1?mm. No pertinent differences were observed with respect to risk factors for ABL change in the subgroup of non‐smokers compared to the results of the analysis based on the entire subject sample. Conclusion: Tooth loss was more common in the molar than in the anterior tooth regions, while periodontal bone loss had a random distribution in the dentition. The predominant risk factors identified with regard to further radiographic bone loss were ‘probing pocket depth ≥6?mm’ and ‘smoking’.     

Clinical evaluation of direct pulp capping using a calcium silicate cement—treatment outcomes over an average period of 2.3 years

Objectives

This study aims to assess the treatment outcomes of direct pulp capping with a calcium silicate cement (Biodentine) after caries excavation.

Materials and methods

A total of 245 teeth of 226 patients diagnosed to be clinical healthy or showing spontaneous pain were directly capped. The teeth were examined 0.19 to 7.4 (mean 2.3 ± 2.04) years after treatment. The following data were recorded: age and sex of the patient, type of tooth and restoration (glass ionomer cement [GIC], amalgam, composite resin, ceramic, gold) and symptoms before or after treatment. The evaluation of the treatment was carried out by sensibility and percussion testing and by the patient’s questioning. A positive sensibility test, a negative percussion test, the absence of swelling and discomfort were considered as treatment success. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test, respectively.

Results

After an average period of 2.3 years, 86.0% of the teeth remained vital; the survival rate after 7.4 years was 83.4%. The treatment outcome was significantly worse for cavities restored with GIC compared to all other restorative materials (p < 0.05). All other evaluated factors had no significant influence on the success rate (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Exposed pulps of asymptomatic vital permanent teeth and teeth with spontaneous pain before treatment can be successfully capped directly using Biodentine. A subsequent restoration with GIC does not appear to be suitable as it significantly reduces the success of the treatment.

Clinical relevance

Direct pulp capping can be done successfully with this type of calcium silicate cement.

     

The use of autologous bone for augmentation procedures leads to low prevalence of peri-implantitis–a retrospective study over a 20-year period

The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants inserted into pristine bone (control) to implants where autologous bone was used for grafting procedures (study).All patients who underwent implant surgery during a 20 years interval by one maxillofacial implant surgeon and received a prosthodontic rehabilitation afterwards were eligible for inclusion in the study. Periimplant bone resorption and periimplant disease were assessed.Of 421 patients 384 (91.2%) patients responded to a recall after having been treated over a 20-year period by one maxillofacial surgeon and several dentists. A total of 110 patients had 239 implants in pristine bone, and 274 patients had 607 implants placed in combination with autologous bone grafting procedures. Mean time in function was 74 months (range 15–236 months). In all, 342 implants (34.8%) were in function for longer than 7 years. A total of 64 implant sites (7.6%) in 39 patients (10.2%) showed signs of peri-implant mucositis. In addition, 17 implants (2.0%) in 14 patients (3.6%) revealed signs of peri-implantitis, of which five implants were in the control group (2.09%) whereas 12 implants were in the study group (1.98%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.8405). More than half of the patients with peri-implantitis had a history of periodontitis. Three implants were lost due to peri-implantitis and four implants failed for other reasons, resulting in an overall success rate of 99.2% in 846 implants.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the study it seems that the use of autologous bone still is a relevant option when performing augmentation procedures because of the low prevalence of peri-implantitis.     

A retrospective clinical study of fixed tooth- and implant-supported prostheses in titanium and cobalt-chromium-ceramic: 5–9-year follow-up

Clinical Oral Investigations - The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of fixed tooth- and implant-supported protheses manufactured in porcelain veneered...     

Coronectomy of mandibular third molars: a clinical and radiological study of 231 cases with a mean follow-up period of 5.7 years

Coronectomy is a widely accepted treatment for mandibular third molars that are in close relationship to the mandibular canal. However, long-term studies on morbidity following this procedure have not been presented. The aim of this study was to examine the long-term morbidity after coronectomy, with sensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and root migration as the primary outcome variables. A total of 231 mandibular third molar coronectomies were performed in 191 patients with a mean follow-up period of 5.7 years (range 1–12 years). The prevalence of IAN injury was 1.3%, and 3.5% of the retained roots were removed. None of the reoperations to remove the retained roots caused IAN impairment. Infections occurred in 11.7% of the cases and all were treated with antibiotics. Overall, 97% of the retained roots showed signs of migration and 65% showed signs of rotation. Therefore, coronectomy of the mandibular third molars with an intimate relationship to the mandibular canal seems to be a safe treatment modality with a good long-term prognosis.     

Implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Brånemark System MKII implants: a prospective comparative study between delayed and immediate loading

This study was designed to compare the results of immediate and delayed loading of implants with implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Ten patients (test group) received 40 Br?nemark System MKII implants (4 per patient) placed in the interforaminal area of the mandible. Standard abutments were immediately screwed to the implants, rigidly connected with a bar, and immediately loaded with an overdenture. Ten patients (control group) received the same type and number of implants in the same area, but the implants were left to heal submerged. Four to 8 months later, standard abutments were screwed to the implants and the same prosthetic procedure was applied. Each implant was evaluated at the time of prosthetic loading and at 6, 12, and 24 months after the initial prosthetic load with the following parameters: modified Plaque Index (MPI), modified Bleeding Index (MBI), probing depth (PD), and Periotest. Peri-implant bone resorption was evaluated on panoramic radiographs taken 12 and 24 months after initial prosthetic loading. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding MPI, MBI, Periotest, peri-implant bone resorption, and PD at 6 and 24 months (P > .05). The only difference was found regarding PD values on the mesial and lingual sites at 12 months (P < .05). The cumulative success rate of implants was 97.5% in both groups. Results from this study showed that immediate loading of endosseous implants rigidly connected with a U-shaped bar does not seem to have any detrimental effect on osseointegration. Conversely, this method significantly shortens the duration of treatment with relevant satisfaction for the patients.     

Do tooth gaps matter? Evaluation of self‐assessments: a pilot study

This study aimed to test the hypothesis stating no difference in number of teeth or tooth gaps counted by the dentist or the patient. The sample consisted of 49 randomly selected regular patients and their dentists (response rate 10%, 53% males). Mean age of the patients was 53.6 +/- 11.9 years. The mean number of teeth was 26.5, 20/49 reported tooth gaps (excluding second and third molars) and 12/20 had visible gaps. The calculation of patients' detection of gaps showed a sensitivity = 79%, specificity = 96% and a positive predictive value of 95%. The patients reported more teeth in the maxilla and fewer teeth in the mandible compared with their dentists. More teeth were misdiagnosed as the number of teeth increased in the mandible. Patients reported more gaps than dentists in both jaws (NS); an average of 0.04, 0.18 and 0.22 misdiagnosed gaps in the maxilla, mandible and for both jaws respectively. Agreement on tooth present/missing in the maxilla was 91.3% (+/-9.82) and in the mandible 88.2% (+/-10.44). Correlation between self-report and dentist's report of the number of teeth present and the number of gaps in the maxilla was (Pearson's r) 0.94 and 0.83. One person with self-perceived visible gaps and five persons with non-visible gaps were recommended treatment; two persons agreed about a treatment need. Self-assessments of tooth gaps show limited but acceptable sensitivity and excellent specificity. No significant differences in tooth counting were found when comparing self-reports and dentists' reports. The study should be tried on a larger scale.