Article

Long-term outcomes of three types of implant-supported mandibular overdentures in smokers.

Department of Oral Implantology and Prosthodontics, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Research Institute MOVE, University of Amsterdam and Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.43). 07/2011; 23(8):925-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02237.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to compare the differences in the long-term clinical and radiologic effects for three different treatment strategies with implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous mandible, with a special emphasis on smoking.
In a randomized- controlled clinical trial, 110 edentulous patients participated. Thirty-six patients were treated with an overdenture supported by two implants with ball attachments (2IBA), 37 patients with an overdenture supported by two implants with a bar (2ISB) and 37 patients with an overdenture supported by four implants with a triple bar (4ITB). After a mean evaluation period of 8.3 years, the clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated.
Ninety-four out of the original 110 patients (=85%) were evaluated. In the 2IBA group, the plaque index was significantly lower (vs. 2ISB, P=0.013; vs. 4ITB, P=0.001) than in the other groups, but there was no correlation with the other peri-implant parameters. In the 4ITB group, the marginal bone loss was significantly higher than that in the two implant groups. The maximal probing depth was correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P=0.011). Smoking almost doubled marginal bone loss irrespective of the treatment strategy chosen.
Patients with two implants show less marginal bone loss than those with four implants. Smoking is a risk factor for the survival of dental implants in the long run.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
130 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This narrative review focuses on the current understanding of the definition and prevalence of peri-implantitis. A MEDLINE (PubMed) search over the past 3 years was performed using keywords related to the definition and prevalence of peri-implantitis. Additional literature retrieved from reference lists, review articles, and consensus reports were used. Definition of peri-implantitis is heterogeneous due to the various thresholds of bone loss and pocket depths used, creating a discrepancy in the prevalence figures. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis varied between 19 and 65 %, whereas the prevalence of peri-implantitis ranged from 10 to 40 %. A consensus has been reached that the definition of peri-implantitis should be clinical signs of inflammation (bleeding on probing) and/or suppuration, in combination with progressive bone loss. In addition, we strongly recommend that measurement of the bone loss in relation to the implant length would further classify the case as mild, moderate, or severe peri-implantitis.
    12/2014; 1(4). DOI:10.1007/s40496-014-0031-x
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies implicate smoking as a significant factor in the failure of dental implants. This review aims to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, risk of postoperative infection and marginal bone loss for smokers versus non-smokers, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, smoking, tobacco, nicotine, smoker, non-smoker. An electronic search was undertaken in September/2014 in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. The search strategy resulted in 1432 publications, of which 107 were eligible, with 19836 implants placed in smokers, with 1259 failures (6.35%), and 60464 implants placed in non-smokers, with 1923 failures (3.18%). The insertion of implants in smokers significantly affected the failure rates, the risk of postoperative infections, as well as the marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies. Smoking is a factor that has the potential to negatively affect healing and the outcome of implant treatment. It is important to perform an updated periodic review to synthesize the clinical research evidence relevant to the matter. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Journal of Dentistry 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.003 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. Nowadays, the advancements in direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) technology allow the fabrication of titanium dental implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate implant survival, complications, and peri-implant marginal bone loss of DMLS implants used to support bar-retained maxillary overdentures. Materials and Methods. Over a 2-year period, 120 implants were placed in the maxilla of 30 patients (18 males, 12 females) to support bar-retained maxillary overdentures (ODs). Each OD was supported by 4 implants splinted by a rigid cobalt-chrome bar. At each annual follow-up session, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. The outcome measures were implant failure, biological and prosthetic complications, and peri-implant marginal bone loss (distance between the implant shoulder and the first visible bone-to-implant contact, DIB). Results. The 3-year implant survival rate was 97.4% (implant-based) and 92.9% (patient-based). Three implants failed. The incidence of biological complication was 3.5% (implant-based) and 7.1% (patient-based). The incidence of prosthetic complication was 17.8% (patient-based). No detrimental effects on marginal bone level were evidenced. Conclusions. The use of 4 DMLS titanium implants to support bar-retained maxillary ODs seems to represent a safe and successful procedure. Long-term clinical studies on a larger sample of patients are needed to confirm these results.
    International Journal of Dentistry 12/2014; 252343:9. DOI:10.1155/2014/252343