Phillip Roe

Effects of connective tissue grafting on the facial gingival level following single immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the esthetic zone: a 1-year randomized controlled prospective study.

PURPOSE This 1-year randomized controlled prospective study evaluated the implant success rate and peri-implant tissue response following single immediate implant placement and provisionalization (IIPP) with and without subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the esthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS Implants were placed either IIPP with SCTG (test group) or IIPP without SCTG (control group). The implants were evaluated both clinically and radiographically before surgery, immediately after implant placement, and 3, 6, and 12 months after implant placement. Data were analyzed using Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and Mann-Whitney U tests at the significance level of α = .05. RESULTS Twenty implants (10 test, 10 control) were placed in 20 patients (7 men, 13 women) between the ages of 27 and 87 (mean age, 52.6 years). At 1 year, all implants remained osseointegrated, with overall mean marginal bone changes of -0.01 mm and -0.14 mm for the test and control groups, respectively. Mean facial gingival level change was significantly more pronounced in the control group (-0.70 mm) than in the test group (-0.25 mm). The modified Plaque Index scores showed that patients were able to maintain a good level of hygiene throughout the study. At 1 year, the Papilla Index indicated that more than 50% papilla fill was observed in 75% of the test sites and 80% of the control sites. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, SCTG was shown to be beneficial in maintaining facial gingival level when performed in conjunction with IIPP procedures.

Immediate Single Tooth Replacement With Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Using Platform Switching Implants: A Case Series

This case series evaluated the facial gingival stability following single immediate tooth replacement in conjunction with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). Implant success rate and peri-implant tissue response were also reported. Ten patients (6 male, 4 female), with a mean age of 52.1 (range = 22.7 to 67.1) years, underwent immediate implant placement and provisionalization with SCTG and were evaluated clinically and radiographically at presurgery (T0), at the time of immediate tooth replacement and SCTG (T1), and 3 months (T2), 6 months (T3), and 12 months (T4) after surgery. Data were analyzed using the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests at the significance level of α = .05. At 1 year, 9 of 10 implants remained osseointegrated with the overall mean marginal bone change of -0.31 mm and a mean facial gingival level change of -0.05 mm. The modified plaque index scores showed that patients were able to maintain a good level of hygiene throughout the study. The papilla index score indicated that at T4, more than 50% of the papilla fill was observed in 89% of all sites. When proper 3-dimensional implant position is achieved and bone graft is placed into the implant-socket gap, favorable success rate and peri-implant tissue response of platform switching implants can be achieved following immediate tooth replacement in conjunction with subepithelial connective tissue graft.

Immediate Loading of Maxillary and Mandibular Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dentures: A 1- to 10-Year Retrospective Study

This study evaluated the success rates of 50 full-arch maxillary and/or mandibular implant-supported fixed complete dentures. After a mean follow-up time of 42.1 months, 269 implants remained in function, which corresponded to cumulative implant success rates of 85.2% and an absolute success rate of 90.6% (269/297 implants). This study suggested that higher implant failure rates might be associated with a dental history of bruxism (29.3%) vs no history of bruxism (4.6%) and surgeons with limited experience (≤5 years; 12.2%) vs surgeons with experience (2.4%).

Marginal bone response of implants with platform switching and non-platform switching abutments in posterior healed sites: a 1-year prospective study.

Objectives This 1-year prospective study evaluated the implant success rate and marginal bone response of non-submerged implants with platform and non-platform switching abutments in posterior healed sites. Material and methods Nineteen patients (9 male, 10 female) with posterior partially edentulous spaces, between the ages of 23 and 76 (mean = 55.4 years), were included in this study. A total of 30 implants (15 implants restored with platform switching [PS] abutments [control] and 15 implants restored with non-platform switching [NPS] abutments [test]) were assigned between two groups using a randomization procedure. The definitive abutments with conical connections were placed at the time of surgery, and the definitive restorations were placed at 3 months. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically using standardized radiographs at time of implant placement (0), 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Data were analyzed using Friedman test with post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann–Whitney U-test, and Pearsons chi-square test at the significance level of α = 0.05. Results At 12 months, all 30 implants remained osseointegrated corresponding to a 100% success rate. The overall mean marginal bone level change at 12 months was −0.04 ± 0.08 mm for PS group and −0.19 ± 0.16 mm for NPS group. Statistically significant difference in the marginal bone level change was observed between groups at 0 to 12 months and 3 to 12 months (P < 0.05). Conclusions This 1-year randomized control study suggests that when a conical implant–abutment connection is present, similar peri-implant tissue responses can be achieved with platform switching and non-platform switching abutments.

Retrieval of a Fractured Zirconia Implant Abutment Using a Modified Crown and Bridge Remover: A Clinical Report

This clinical report describes a novel method to retrieve the internal connection of a fractured zirconia abutment through modification of a crown and bridge remover. Furthermore, the strengths and limitations of using a zirconia implant abutment will be highlighted.

Fabrication of a modified repositioning key for relining provisional restorations.

1. Burns DR. The mandibular complete overdenture. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:603-23. 2. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J 2009;207:185-6. 3. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 24-25, 2002. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:413-4. 4. Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1455-8. 5. Shor A, Goto Y, Shor K. Mandibular twoimplant-retained overdenture: prosthetic design and fabrication protocol. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007;28:80-8. 6. Hemmings KW, Schmitt A, Zarb GA. Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:191-6. 7. Pasciuta M, Grossman Y, Finger IM. A prosthetic solution to restoring the edentulous mandible with limited interarch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:116-20. 8. Vallittu PK. A review of methods used to reinforce polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Prosthodont 1995;4:183-7. 9. Jagger DC, Harrison A, Jandt KD. The reinforcement of dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:185-94. 10.Ohkubo C, Kurtz KS, Suzuki Y, Hanatani S, Abe M, Hosoi T. Comparative study of maxillary complete dentures constructed of metal base and metal structure framework. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:149-56. 11.Shimizu H, Ikeda T, Wakabayashi N, Ohyama T. Effect of metal strengthener length on stress distribution in acrylic denture bases: a finite element study. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:879-83. 12.Shor A, Shor K, Goto Y. Implant-retained overdenture design for the malpositioned mandibular implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2006;27:411-9. 13.Gonda T, Ikebe K, Dong J, Nokubi T. Effect of reinforcement on overdenture strain. J Dent Res 2007;86:667-71. 14.Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. A review of clinical and technical considerations for fixed and removable implant prostheses in the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:65-72. 15.Rodrigues AH. Metal reinforcement for implant-supported mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:511-3. 16.Nerli SR, Patil R. A simple method to obtain uniform thickness of acrylic resin around a grid strengthener embedded in a denture base. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:95-6. 17.Daher T. A simple, predictable intraoral technique for retentive mechanism attachment of implant overdenture attachments. J Prosthodont 2003;12:202-5. 18.Sadig WM. Special technique for attachment incorporation with an implant overdenture. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:93-6. 19.Toothaker R, Soultanis I, Ojha A, AshcraftOlmscheid DL, Chang MW. Retrofitting an existing implant overdenture to a new and redesigned intraoral framework: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2004;13:47-51. 20.Pasciuta M, Grossmann Y, Finger IM. A prosthetic solution to restoring the edentulous mandible with limited interarch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:116-20. 21.Saha S, Ray-Chaudhuri A. Mandibular implant-retained complete overdenture using retentive abutments: a case report. Dent Update 2009;36:154-8. 22.Christensen GJ. Relining, rebasing partial and complete dentures. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:503-6. 23.Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert SE, Jacob RF, Fenton AH, Merickse-Stern R. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2003. p. 401-19.