The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth: A chart review (original) (raw)
Related papers
Biologie Outcome of Single-Implant Restorations as Tooth Replacements: A Long-term Follow-up Study
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2000
Background: The replacement of a single tooth or several teeth by means of single-implant restorations is an increasingly used method that needs long-term validation. Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the outcome of single-implant restorations by means of fixed restorations and to define the prognosis through marginal bone level estimations. Materials and Methods: From November 1986 to June 1998, 270 Brinemark implants (215 in the upper jaw) were installed in 219 patients (106 males). Both anterior and posterior sites were involved. Of the 263 single restorations, 28 were placed in private dental offices. The patients were followed until June 1999. Results: Twelve implants failed before or at abutment connection or within 6 months afterward. Only four implants failed later. The cumulative success rates were 93% for the implants and 96.5% for the restorations over a period of 11 years. The marginal bone loss during the first 6 months after abutment connection reached 0.71 mm and then dropped to 0.036 mm annually over a period of 10 years. Conclusions: Single-implant restorations (Brinemark System") are a reliable treatment with a good long-term prognosis. Failures were concentrated during the healing period and early loading phase. KEY WORDS dental implants, marginal bone loss, partid edentulism, prognosis, single-tooth restoration, success he replacement of one or several missing teeth is a T prosthetic challenge, especially in the anterior region of the mouth where esthetic demands are high. Patients are reluctant to accept removable partial dentures, which are also not well tolerated by oral tissues. Conventional fixed partial prostheses are invasive to dental tissues and present a risk of pulp injury.' Fixed restorations, especially in young patients, have to be replaced several times through life, which may compromise the integrity of the supporting tissues. Jemt first described the application of osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacements.2 He pointed out the advantage of this approach when neighboring teeth are intact. Those teeth remain mostly intact or minimally-~ ~
Anterior Single-Tooth Implant Restorations: Clinical Rules for Reducing Risk Factors
Implant restoration is traditionally used in clinical situ- ations where healthy teeth are adjacent to an edentulous space and one or more diastema.1 Today, this restorative approach is commonly used. The implant placement proto- col has been simplified, and loading concepts have been enhanced.2,3 A well-recognized technique involves the simultaneous placement of the implant and healing abut- ment in good quality bone, which reduces patient discom- fort and the risks of unattractive gingival scarring that could occur during the second surgical phase (subsequent placement of the healing abutment). However, the placement of an implant without first carefully examining the periodontium, the condition of the teeth and the intensity of occlusal contacts may have unfortunate mechanical and esthetic consequences.4 This article summarizes the preoperative evaluation criteria for single-tooth implant restorations and lists clinical pitfalls to avoid.
A systematic review of single-tooth restorations supported by implants
Journal of Dentistry, 2000
Objectives: To make an inventory of clinical studies on single-tooth restorations supported by implants using a systematic review procedure and to aggregate overall survival results. Data sources: Papers referring to single-tooth implants were located by a MEDLINE search 1990 to April 1998. Three hundred and twenty references were found, and they were subjected to a systematic review procedure. Study selection: A three-step inclusion/exclusion procedure was applied to identify papers that represented: good scientific practice (GSP), reported results of all patients, implants and crowns for more than 2 years, and had sufficient data to generate life-table analyses. The outcomes were 'implant failure' and 'crown completion'. Nine studies survived. These data showed an overall mean GSP of 0.37 with a predicted 4 year implant survival of 97% (n 459), and an uncomplicated crown maintenance of 83% (n 240). Conclusion: Single-tooth implants show an acceptable short-term survival of 4 years, but crown complications are common.
2017
Fifty-four consecutive patients requiring single-tooth replacement received 62 2-piece nonsubmerged flapless implants characterized by an innovative hyperbolic neck. The implant placement timing was as follows: 15 immediately post-extraction (immediate), 18 after 8–12 weeks (early) and 29 after 10–12 months (delayed). Customized abutments with an abutment–implant connection approximately 1–2 mm above the soft-tissue level were positioned after 3 months, loaded with provisional crowns and 20 days later with definitive crowns. Gingival biotype (thin or thick) was investigated in all patients. Periimplant marginal bone level (MBL; mm) was measured single-blinded on periapical radiographs at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months (T1, T3, T6, T12). Papilla index (PI), plaque score and bleeding on probing (BoP) were evaluated as clinical parameters of soft tissue. Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was calculated as the esthetic parameter. R e s u l t s
Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2014
Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets is generally considered a reliable procedure that offers several clinical advantages. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the overall clinical outcomes of immediate and delayed restoration procedures for implants placed in fresh extraction sockets by means of a flapless technique and resorbable membrane stabilizing a xenograft. Total costs and operating times were also compared. In this prospective cohort study, changes of marginal bone level, facial soft tissue (ΔFST), and width of keratinized gingiva (ΔWKG), in addition to the papilla index, underwent a pairwise comparison; correlations with pristine buccal bone thickness were also investigated. Although similar results were recorded for the two procedures, with a bone loss of -1.0 ± 0.5 mm and -0.9 ± 0.7 mm, respectively, for immediate and delayed restoration, negative remodeling in the delayed restoration procedure was seen to occur from 4 to 12 mont...
Implant supported restoration in single-tooth replacement
2018
Background: The implant-prosthetic restoration in single missing tooth is a viable treatment option for the functional rehabilitation of tooth loss. Several published studies show that the deadline and the type of functional loading of the implant for single missing teeth is not decisive for the survival and success rate of the implant. Although the conventional protocol is still the "gold standard", the immediate loading of dental implants in the fresh postextraction socket of the aesthetic area has an excellent prognosis. Immediate functional loading is successfully adopted to minimize the treatment time with immediate and impact benefit on the patient's quality of life and satisfaction. The aesthetic result is not yet systematically included in the success criteria of the therapy through implant, although a trend for this is more common in recent publications, particularly in publications evaluating the implant prosthetic rehabilitation in the anterior maxilla and mandible. In order to obtain optimal aesthetic results, it is necessary to take into account the other aesthetic parameters, together with the chosen material for the fabrication of the implant-supported single crown and the type of prosthetic abutment. Conclusions: The systematic review of the contemporary specialty literature examines the types of implantations and implant-supported restorations for single tooth replacement, the survival rates of the implant, the survival of the crown on the implant and the successful implant, incidence of biological, technical and aesthetical complications of the implants and prosthetic restorations on implants, the quality of life related to the oral health to patients with implant-prosthetic treatment.
A 5-year prospective study of implant-supported single-tooth replacements
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, 2002
Because osseointegration has been successful in the management of completely edentulous patients, it is tempting to extrapolate these results and infer the success of single-tooth replacement. Yet there are major clinical differences between edentulous and partially edentulous patients. This prospective study is a follow-up to one started at the University of Toronto in 1986. The purpose of this study was to continue longitudinal assessment of implant-supported single-tooth replacements. The original study comprised 42 consecutively treated patients with a total of 49 implants. The patient group consisted of all University of Toronto patients treated with single Br nemark implants whose treatment had been completed more than 5 years previously (i.e., before 1994). No exclusion criteria applied. One implant was not osseointegrated at the time of stage 2 surgery, and 6 patients with reportedly successful osseointegrated implants were not available for recall. For the preparation of th...
Survival of Intentionally Replanted Teeth and Implant-supported Single Crowns: A Systematic Review
Journal of endodontics, 2015
Although nonsurgical initial root canal treatment and retreatment have high success rates, periapical disease can remain. The survival rates of 2 surgical procedures, intentionally replanted (IR) teeth and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs), have yet to be compared. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the literature and quantify the survival of IR teeth and compare it with that of ISCs. Systematic searches were enriched by citation mining. Weighted survival means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model and compared. The quality of the IR and ISC articles was only moderate. Data for ISCs were much more plentiful than for IR teeth. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted mean survival of 88% (95% CI, 81%-94%) for IR teeth. Root resorption was reported with a mean prevalence of 11%. The weighted mean survival of ISCs was 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%). The mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than that of IR teeth ...
Journal of Endodontics, 2008
One of the major issues confronting the contemporary dental clinician is the treatment decision between extracting a tooth with placement of a dental implant or preserving the natural tooth by root canal treatment. The factors that dictate the correct selection of one procedure over the other for each particular case are not yet established by randomized controlled studies. The aim of this review is to evaluate key factors allowing the clinician to make clinical decisions on the basis of the best evidence and in the patient's best interests. General considerations are discussed that will help the reader analyze clinical studies focused on this problem. Importantly, the major studies published to date indicate that there is no difference in long-term prognosis between single-tooth implants and restored root canaltreated teeth. Therefore, the decision to treat a tooth endodontically or to place a single-tooth implant should be based on other criteria such as prosthetic restorability of the tooth, quality of bone, esthetic demands, cost-benefit ratio, systematic factors, potential for adverse effects, and patient preferences. It can be concluded that endodontic treatment of teeth represents a feasible, practical, and economical way to preserve function in a vast array of cases and that dental implants serve as a good alternative in selected indications in which prognosis is poor. (J Endod 2008;34: 519 -529)