Marjolein Vercruyssen

Long‐term, retrospective evaluation (implant and patient‐centred outcome) of the two‐implant‐supported overdenture in the mandible. Part 2: marginal bone loss

OBJECTIVE This retrospective analysis evaluated the long-term outcome of two implants supporting an overdenture in the mandible, as well as the significance of some confounding factors (smoking, implant length, bone quality). MATERIAL AND METHODS All mandibular overdenture cases (n=495) treated during the past 25 years in our centre (with > or = 5 years loading of the implants) were included in this study. General information (medical history, implant data, report on surgery) was retrieved from the patients file. A large number of patients (n=248) were willing to visit the clinic for an additional follow-up visit. For the others, information on implant survival was collected by phone (n=121), or contact was impossible (57 had died, three were hospitalized and 66 could not be reached). In the latter group, information was used, up to their last visit to the clinic. An implant was considered as surviving if it was still in function in the mouth, without clear adverse effects (pain, swelling, mobility). A failure was defined as early if it occurred within the window, insertion-final prosthesis placement; afterwards, it was considered as late. RESULTS Most of the inserted implants (Brånemark type) were of the turned (machined) type (95.5%), the remainder was anodized (TiUnite). The anchoring system was either a bar (86.3%), ball attachments (11.7%) or magnets (1.6%), and only some patients changed from one to the other (0.4%). Kaplan-Meier analyses showed a survival rate of 95.5% after 20 years of loading. Factors that influenced the outcome included smoking (90% rate for smokers) and the surgical protocol (reduced survival rate for one-stage-placed implants). Implant length and bone quality had no impact. CONCLUSIONS These results fully support the two-implant overdenture concept in the mandible even in the long run.

Accuracy of computer‐aided implant placement

AIM To assess the accuracy of static computer-guided implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information on the accuracy of static computer-guided implant placement and meta-regression analyses were performed to summarize and analyse the overall accuracy. The latter included a search for correlations between factors such as: support (teeth/mucosa/bone), number of templates, use of fixation pins, jaw, template production, guiding system, guided implant placement. RESULTS Nineteen accuracy studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta analysis revealed a mean error of 0.99 mm (ranging from 0 to 6.5 mm) at the entry point and of 1.24 mm (ranging from 0 to 6.9 mm) at the apex. The mean angular deviation was 3.81° (ranging from 0 to 24.9°). Significant differences for all deviation parameters was found for implant-guided placement compared to placement without guidance. Number of templates used was significant, influencing the apical and angular deviation in favour for the single template. Study design and jaw location had no significant effect. Less deviation was found when more fixation pins were used (significant for entry). CONCLUSION Computer-guided implant placement can be accurate, but significant deviations have to be taken into account. Randomized studies are needed to analyse the impact of individual parameters in order to allow optimization of this technique. Moreover, a clear overview on indications and benefits would help the clinicians to find the right candidates.

A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template

AIM To assess the accuracy of guided surgery (mucosa and bone-supported) compared to mental navigation or the use of a surgical template, in fully edentulous jaws, in a randomized controlled study. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty-nine patients (72 jaws), requiring four to six implants (maxilla or mandible), were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to one of the following treatment groups; guidance via Materialise Universal(®)/mucosa, Materialise Universal(®)/bone, Facilitate™/mucosa, Facilitate™/bone, or mental navigation or a pilot-drill template. The precision was assessed by matching the planning computed tomography (CT) with a post-operative cone beam CT. RESULTS A significant lower mean deviation at the entry point (1.4 mm, range: 0.3-3.7), at the apex (1.6 mm, range: 0.2-3.7) and angular deviation (3.0°, range: 0.2-16°) was observed for the guiding systems when compared to mental navigation (2.7 mm, range: 0.3-8.3; 2.9 mm, range: 0.5-7.4 and 9.9°, range: 1.5-27.8) and to the surgical template group (3.0 mm, range: 0.6-6.6; 3.4 mm, range: 0.3-7.5 and 8.4°, range: 0.6-21.3°). Differences between bone and mucosa support or type of guidance were negligible. Jaw and implant location (posterior-anterior, left-right), however, had a significant influence on the accuracy when guided. CONCLUSION Based on these findings, guided implant placement appears to offer clear accuracy benefits.

Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications

For computer-guided surgery a static surgical guide is used that transfers the virtual implant position from computerized tomographic data to the surgical site. These guides are produced by computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture technology, such as stereolithography, or manually in a dental laboratory (using mechanical positioning devices or drilling machines). With computer-navigated surgery the position of the instruments in the surgical area is constantly displayed on a screen with a three-dimensional image of the patient. In this way, the system allows real-time transfer of the preoperative planning and visual feedback on the screen. A workflow of the different systems is presented in this review.

Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review.

AIM To give an overview of the workflow from examination to planning and execution, including possible errors and pitfalls, in order to justify the indications for guided surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS An electronic literature search of the PubMed database was performed with the intention of collecting relevant information on computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery. RESULTS Currently, different computer-supported systems are available to optimize and facilitate implant surgery. The transfer of the implant planning (in a software program) to the operative field remains however the most difficult part. Guided implant surgery clearly reduces the inaccuracy, defined as the deviation between the planned and the final position of the implant in the mouth. It might be recommended for the following clinical indications: need for minimal invasive surgery, optimization of implant planning and positioning (i.e. aesthetic cases), and immediate restoration. CONCLUSIONS The digital technology rapidly evolves and new developments have resulted in further improvement of the accuracy. Future developments include the reduction of the number of steps needed from the preoperative examination of the patient to the actual execution of the guided surgery. The latter will become easier with the implementation of optical scans and 3D-printing.

Digital technologies to support planning, treatment, and fabrication processes and outcome assessments in implant dentistry: summary and consensus statements: the 4th EAO consensus conference 2015

OBJECTIVE The task of this working group was to assess the existing knowledge in computer-assisted implant planning and placement, fabrication of reconstructions applying computers compared to traditional fabrication, and assessments of treatment outcomes using novel imaging techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS Three reviews were available for assessing the current literature and provided the basis for the discussions and the consensus report. One review dealt with the use of computers to plan implant therapy and to place implants in partially and fully edentulous patients. A second one focused on novel techniques and methods to assess treatment outcomes and the third compared CAD/CAM-fabricated reconstructions to conventionally fabricated ones. RESULTS The consensus statements, the clinical recommendations, and the implications for research, all of them after approval by the plenum of the consensus conference, are described in this article. The three articles by Vercruyssen et al., Patzelt & Kohal, and Benic et al. are presented separately as part of the supplement of this consensus conference.

An RCT comparing patient-centred outcome variables of guided surgery (bone or mucosa supported) with conventional implant placement

AIM To assess in a randomized study the patient-centred outcome of two guided surgery systems (mucosa or bone supported) compared to conventional implant placement, in fully edentulous patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty-nine patients (72 jaws) with edentulous maxillas and/ or mandibles, were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ-DLV), the Health-related quality of life instrument (HRQOL), visual analogue scales (VAS), the duration of the procedure, and the analgesic doses taken each day. RESULTS Three hundred and fourteen implants were placed successfully. No statistical differences could be shown between treatment groups on pain response (MPQ-DLV), treatment perception (VAS) or number or kind of pain killers. For the HRQOLI-instrument, a significant difference was found between the Materialise Mucosa and Materialise Bone group at day 1 (p = 0.02) and day 2 (p = 0.01). For the duration of the surgery, a statistical difference (p = 0.005) was found between the Materialise mucosa and the Mental group, in favour of the first. CONCLUSION In this study little difference could be found in the patient outcome variables of the different treatment groups. However there was a tendency for patients treated with conventional flapped implant placement to experience the pain for a longer period of time.

Depth and lateral deviations in guided implant surgery: an RCT comparing guided surgery with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template

AIM To assess the accuracy of guided surgery compared with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template in fully edentulous patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty consecutive patients (72 jaws), requiring four to six implants (maxilla or mandible), were randomly assigned to one of the following treatment modalities: Materialise Universal(®) mucosa, Materialise Universal(®) bone, Facilitate(™) mucosa, Facilitate(™) bone, mental navigation, or a pilot-drill template. Accuracy was assessed by matching the planning CT with a postoperative CBCT. Deviations were registered in a vertical (depth) and horizontal (lateral) plane. The latter further subdivided into BL (bucco-lingual) and MD (mesio-distal) deviations. RESULTS The overall mean vertical deviation for the guided surgery groups was 0.9 mm ± 0.8 (range: 0.0-3.7) and 0.9 mm ± 0.6 (range: 0.0-2.9) in a horizontal direction. For the non-guided groups, this was 1.7 mm ± 1.3 (range: 0.0-6.4) and 2.1 mm ± 1.4 (range 0.0-8.5), respectively (P < 0.05). The overall mean deviation for the guided surgery groups in MD direction was 0.6 mm ± 0.5 (range: 0.0-2.5) and 0.5 mm ± 0.5 (range: 0.0-2.9) in BL direction. For the non-guided groups, this was 1.8 mm ± 1.4 (range: 0.0-8.3) and 0.7 mm ± 0.6 (range 0.0-2.9), respectively. The deviation in MD direction was significantly higher in the non-guided groups (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION The most important inaccuracy with guided surgery is in vertical direction (depth). The inaccuracy in MD or BL direction is clearly less. For non-guided surgery, the inaccuracy is significantly higher.

Model‐based guided implant insertion for solitary tooth replacement: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE The impact of the implant position on the restorative outcome could justify guided surgery even for the single implants particularly in the aesthetic zone and especially when a simplified concept is available. MATERIAL AND METHODS Based on a plaster model, on which the soft tissues were mimicked (according to the thickness measured on a Cone-Beam CT), a tooth-supported, surgical template was prepared. The latter guided all drills so that even flapless implant insertion became possible. All implants were placed by students of the master-after-master training program in Periodontology. RESULTS The prospective cohort included a total of 34 implants, all of AstraTech (Osteospeed(®)) type, which were successfully inserted in 29 patients, 16 flapless, 32 onestage. The marginal bone along the integrated implants remained stable over time, with 0.13 mm loss during the first year. The aesthetic parameters were reassuring. CONCLUSIONS This simple model-based concept seems to be reliable for the guided placement of single implants and the pre-operative preparation of their restorations.

Sleeping vs. loaded implants, long-term observations via a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE Several theories have been presented to explain initial and secondary marginal bone loss around dental implants (e.g. microbial load, adverse loading, microbial leakage, compromised healing/adaptation of host-implant interface). MATERIAL AND METHODS This study compared the long-term outcome (up to 12 years) of sleeping with loaded implants in the mandible via a split-mouth concept. Fourteen patients with overdentures were enrolled (10 women, mean age at implant insertion: 56 years [range: 33-71]). They presented with 28 loaded (position 33/43) and 14 sleeping implants (mostly position 31/41). At several follow-up visits, intra-oral radiographs (long-cone principle) were taken to observe marginal bone level changes. RESULTS At each observation, compared with abutment connection, the submerged non-loaded implants showed less bone loss (P-values: 1st year 0.007, 3 years 0.000, 5 years 0.002, 8 years 0.007, 12 years 0.000) than their neighbouring functional implants. This difference was primarily due to a more significant bone loss during the first year of loading (0.8 vs. 0.1 mm respectively), since afterwards, the bone level changes remained quite similar for both implant types. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggest that the first months of loading have a significant impact on the bone level (initial difference sleeping vs. loaded implants), followed by a more physiological bone level change afterwards. This initial difference might be explained by the adaptation of the surrounding bone to the loaded implant.