Success Criteria in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review (original) (raw)

Evaluation of dental implants at 5 years from the completion of implant-prosthetic treatment

HVM Bioflux, 2014

Introduction The implant-prosthetic treatment is an alternative to conventional prosthetic treatment such as fixed partial dentures, removable partial dentures, or even total dentures (Misch 1993; Bratu & Nussbaum 2006). Today, the rehabilitation of partial and/or total edentation by endosseous implants is a very widely used therapy. Endosseous implant-supported prosthetic restorations can be fixed or removable, the indication depending on the clinical situation of the patient. The placement of implant-prosthetic restorations in partially edentulous regions is a complex procedure, due to the need for a correct evaluation of the patient in order to elaborate an adequate therapeutic plan (Băciuţ 2007). The dentist should monitor and detect the associated pathology of the patient, the administered medication, the presence of periodontal pathology, of the smoking habit, as well as the patient’s ability to maintain the future restoration. The disregard of the doctor’s indications, of rig...

Success, survival and failure rates of dental implants: a cross-sectional study

2017

The cross-sectional study included only patients who had undergone prosthetic rehabilitation. The following criteria were evaluated by interview and dental record analysis: age, sex, presence of systemic disease, history of smoking, area in which the implant was placed, implant diameter and height, and type of prosthesis seated on the implant. The following parameters were clinically analyzed: pain, mobility, probing depth, bleeding on probing, and presence or absence of exudate. The amount of bone loss was assessed radiographically. The study included 35 implants placed in 19 patients.

Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry

Clinical oral implants research, 2018

The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant-retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-36). The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made a...

Implants and/or teeth: consensus statements and recommendations

Journal of oral …, 2008

In August 23-25, 2007, the Scandinavian Society for Prosthetic Dentistry in collaboration with the Danish Society of Oral Implantology arranged a consensus conference on the topic 'Implants and ⁄ or teeth'. It was preceded by a workshop in which eight focused questions were raised and answered in eight review articles using a systematic approach. Twenty-eight academicians and clinicians discussed the eight review papers with the purpose to reach consensus on questions relevant for the topic. At the conference the consensus statements were presented as well as lectures based on the review articles. In this article the methods used at the consensus workshop are briefly described followed by the statements with comments.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Implant Length on the Survival of Rough-Surface Dental Implants

Journal of Periodontology, 2009

Background: A meta-analysis on the survival of short implants compared to conventional implants has never been performed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to address the focused question ''Is there a significant difference in survival between short (£8 or <10 mm) and conventional ( ‡10 mm) rough-surface dental implants placed in 1) totally or 2) partially edentulous patients?'' by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies published in the dental literature in the English language up to and including August 2007.

Dental Implants: Systematic Review

2020

Purpose: to assess any differences on marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissuelevel dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019.: Materials and methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors. The search was limited to articles in English. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis. A total of 1161 patients (mean age 54,4 years) and 2933 implants were observed, 1427 (Tissue-level) and 1506 (Bone-level). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone los...

Esthetic patient satisfaction, marginal bone loss and peri-implant tissue success in esthetic zone: systematic review

Brazilian Dental Science, 2022

Increased patient demands for highly esthetic implant superstructure in the anterior esthetic zone has increased in the last decades. Moreover, the absence of periodontal ligament in implant supported prosthesis causes forces to be transferred without cushioning effect to the alveolar bone, resulting in increased marginal bone loss (MBL) and influence the heath of peri-implant tissue. Evaluate the available evidence on the effect implant superstructure and it consequences on patient satisfaction, MBL, bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing depth (PD). A protocol of electronic and hand research was performed for English based researches comparing implants inserted in the esthetic zone with all ceramic superstructure: "Will the use of different types of all ceramic superstructure show different esthetic patient satisfaction, marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing and probing depth? Thirteen publications from one thousand one hundred and sixteen research studies were included. This systematic review showed that all ceramic implant superstructure was a versatile treatment option with higher esthetic patient satisfaction and better color of peri-implant mucous especially in patients having thin biotype. On the other hand there wasn't significant difference in MBL, PD and BOP compared to other conventional implant superstructure. More randomized controlled clinical trials with bigger samples are needed to confirm our findings. All ceramic implant superstructure is versatile and highly esthetic treatment option for implant placed in the anterior esthetic zone.

Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Prosthodontics and implant dentistry

Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2018

OBJECTIVES Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full-arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. RESULTS A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full-arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One-piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two-piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.

Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis

Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2014

Rehabilitation of the incomplete dentition by means of osseointegrated dental implants represents a highly predictable and widespread therapy; however, little is known about potential risk factors that may impair long-term implant success. From 2004 to 2012, a total of 13,147 implants were placed in 4,316 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna. The survival rates after 8 years of follow-up were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of patient- and implant-related risk factors was assessed. Overall implant survival was 97% and was not associated with implant length (P=0.930), implant diameter (P=0.704), jaw location (P=0.545), implant position (P=0.450), local bone quality (P=0.398), previous bone augmentation surgery (P=0.617), or patient-related factors including osteoporosis (P=0.661), age (P=0.575), or diabetes mellitus (P=0.928). However, smoking increased the risk of implant failure by 3 folds (P<0.001) and a positive history of periodontal ...