2.22.23 Freya_COIR Flashcards
What study examined marginal bone loss for implant-supported fixed full-arch prostheses over 5 years?
Galindo-Moreno COIR
Retrospective study
Patients were edentulous due to a history of severe periodontitis
They were OsseoSpeed Astra Tech TX implants, placed at central incisors, canines, first premolars, and first molars
There was more MBL when abutment height = 1mm.
Survival for prosthesis and implants was 100%
Segmentation of the prosthesis allowed easier maintenance, retrievability and installation compared to 1-piece
Less than 0.5mm MBL was observed in pts with >2mm transmucosal abutments after 5 years
What study examined the in vitro effects of different implant decontamination methods in three intraosseous defect configurations?
Luengo COIR
4 methods of decontamination tested:
1. Airflow + glycine powder
2. Titanium brush
3. PEEK ultrasonic
4. Stainless steel ultrasonic
Airflow + glycine, and titanium brushes,w ere the most effective methods. Ti brush was better when intraosseous walls existed.
What study examined narrow-diameter vs. standard-diameter implants with lateral bone augmentation in posterior jaws - 3 year RCT?
Zhang COIR
The aim of this study was to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDI Ø3.5 mm) with standard-diameter implants (SDI Ø4.3 mm) in conjunction with lateral bone augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws.
Implant: Nobel Biocare AG
Bone graft: Geistlich Bio-Oss
Membrane: Geistlich Bio-Guid
Zirconia based crowns
Examinded 4 things: Survival/technical complications, crestal bone loss, biologic complications, cost
Survival & Technical complications:
100% survival rate for all the implants placed.
87.5% in NDI, and 91.3% in SDI has NO technical complication
NDI groups had slightly higher technical complications (3.8% more) (eg veneer chipping, abutment screw loosening, and loss of retention)
Crestal bone loss:
The majority of implants in both groups showed CBL within 1 mm.
Biologic complications:
NDI - 5 had peri-implant mucositis (20.8%), 2 had peri-implantitis (8.3%)
SDI: 4 had peri-implantitis (17.4%), 1 had peri-implantitis (4.3%)
Note:
Small sample size
Author argued that the higher biological complication rate observed in NDI group was due to the deeper placement of implants to allow better emergence profile
Cost:
Total cumulative cost (includes initial treatment and retreatments) is much lower in NDI group ($2846 USD vs $3581 USD )
Satisfaction in NDI group was higher after suture removal
Satisfaction is NSSD between group 1 year after prosthesis loading
What study examined the nonsurgical treatment of mild to moderate peri-implantitis using a chitosan brush or titanium curette?
Khan COIR
RCT
Implants were excluded if peri-implant bone loss was >4 mm, and any implants previously treated with grafting materials.
Peri-implantitis was defined as: 2-4 mm radiographic bone loss; BI ≥2, PD ≥ 4 mm
39 pts with 1 implant each. Implants were treated for 2 minutes; treatment was repeated at 3 months for implants with PD ≥4 mm and BI >0.
Findings : NSSD between groups.
However, both groups showed improvements in PD and BOP at 6 mo compared to baseline. But, active disease remained (presence of pus)
What study examined the impact of abutment geometry on early implant marginal bone loss?
Perez-Sayans COIR
To analyze the impact of the abutment morphology on early marginal bone loss (MBL) in which conventional cylindrical abutments vs concave abutments placed in the same surgical procedure.
Abutments placed at the same time as the implants (“one abutment one time”). Crown was placed at 8 weeks.
MBL was examined at 8 wks (before loading) and at 6 mo post-loading via radiographs.
Findings: **The concave abutments had SSD less MBL than the cylindrical abutments. (-0.17 mm versus -0.62 mm) **= about a half mm difference
What study examined the reconstructive treatment of peri-implant defects - at 3 and 5 years?
Aghazadeh COIR
Aim: To assess the long-term efficacy (follow-up: 5 years) of reconstructive treatment of peri- implantitis intraosseous defects using either autogenous bone graft or a bovine-derived xenograft combined with a resorbable membrane in patients attending a maintenance programme at three-month intervals.
Methods:
All implant-supported reconstructions were removed before surgical interventions.
Degranulation and implant surfaces were debrided using titanium curettes, then implants chemically cleaned with a gauze soaked in 3% hydrogen peroxide.
Measurements (extent of bone loss/vertical defects from the implant platform to the most apical bone level and the distance from the implant platform to the most coronal part of the bone (M, B D, L)
Random assignment to AB or BDX groups. (AB obtained with a bone scraper or with BDX (Bio-Oss® particle size 0.25-l.0 mm)
A resorbable membrane (OsseoGuard®) for both groups.
Post-Op: Antibiotics (Azithromycin) and Ibuprofen + rinse daily with 0.1% chlorhexidine for 6 weeks.
**Six weeks after surgery, the first supportive therapy was given. then every 3 months. **All existing teeth and implants were cleaned using a rubber cup and a low-abrasive paste. If BOP was detected during the maintenance visit, the area was re-instrumented with curettes.
At 5-year FU, BOP and PD scores were significantly reduced in both AB and BDX groups.
Findings: Reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implant defects using BDX resulted in more predictable outcomes than using autogenous bone over 5 years. - However, the study was sponsored by Bio-Oss company, and 2- and 3- wall defects were included and not specified which were assigned to which groups. It’s possible the BioOss group had more 3-wall defects and therefore was more successful
What study examined the oral function of implant-assisted RPD’s (“IARPD’s”) with magnetic attachments using short implants
Watanabe COIR
Stage 0: Period of using regular RPD’s
Stage 1- IARPD’s with healing caps
Stage 2-IARPD’s with magnetic attachments
Assessed 4 functions: Mixing ability, comminuting ability, max bite force, occlusal contact area.
implant survival was 93.8%
IARPD’s with healing caps performed less effectively in mixing ability, comminuting ability, and occlusal contact area than those with the magnetic attachments. NSSD in Max bite force
