Sunyoung Ma

Ceramic implants (Y-TZP): are they a viable alternative to titanium implants for the support of overdentures? A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess 1-year clinical success of one-piece zirconia implants compared with similar-design titanium implants, in the context of a novel protocol for implant distribution. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-four edentulous participants were randomly allocated to one-piece titanium or zirconia implant group. Each participant received four implants in the maxilla (mid-palatal and three anterior crestal implants) and three implants in the mandible (mid-symphyseal and two bilateral distal implants). Conventional loading protocol was followed. Marginal bone remodeling and clinical success of implants were evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed, and risk predictors for implant failures were evaluated. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the survival rate between the two groups. In the mandible, the survival rate of titanium implants was 95.8% vs. 90.9% for the zirconia implants. The corresponding values in the maxilla were 71.9% and 55%, respectively. Three implants in the zirconia group fractured. Statistically significant less marginal bone loss was observed around titanium implants (0.18 mm) compared with the zirconia group (0.42 mm). The prediction model revealed a higher risk for implant failures in the maxilla (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION The outcome of this study indicates caution before recommendation can be made for the use of single-piece zirconia implants for overdenture support. Their use should be limited to cases with proven allergy to titanium. This is mainly due to the increased bone loss and higher fracture rate observed for zirconia implants. Future biomaterial research should focus on producing surface characteristics on zirconia implants with outcomes similar to those established for the optimum osseointegration of titanium implants.

Fractured zirconia implants and related implant designs: scanning electron microscopy analysis

OBJECTIVES Two fractured one-piece experimental (commercially unavailable) zirconia implants were analyzed using scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis to identify failure origins and aid in understanding the failure mechanisms. Modifications to the zirconia implant design are suggested to minimize such fracture incidences. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two zirconia implants fractured during the final torquing in the maxillary ridge using the prescribed hand torque wrench. The implants were subsequently retrieved and prepared for optical and SEM evaluation. Critical attention was given to the fractography (crack morphology) of the fractured implants to identify the fracture origin. RESULTS Events related to initiation and propagation of the crack front could be detected from the morphology of the fractured surfaces. Unfavorable torque and bending forces applied on the implant during surgical placement and the inherent flaws in the material may have resulted in crack initiation and implant failure. CONCLUSIONS Caution must be exercised when placing zirconia implants in dense bone sites. Modification of surgical protocols for the intended implant site may be necessary. Improvement in design features specific to zirconia implants, and strict quality control during manufacture is essential to minimize the likelihood of fracture.

Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Implant Prostheses: : A Systematic Review of Prosthodontic Maintenance and Complications

PURPOSE This systematic review aimed to identify different prosthodontic outcomes between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS The relevant articles were retrieved from the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed (using medical subject headings), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search was performed up to December 31, 2013, and was restricted to studies on human subjects reported in English. A further search was conducted through the reference lists of the articles found as well as from early online articles. Reviewed studies were those on fixed implant prostheses using different retention mechanisms such as screws or cement. Information on types of screws and mechanisms of preloading, as well as different luting cements, was collected in correlation with prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues seen in the clinical studies. RESULTS Sixty-two papers met the review criteria. There were only six randomized controlled trials and none of them included an equivalent number of screw- and cement-retained single implant crowns for comparison. Studies used different types of screws and only a few reported the preloading procedure for the prosthetic screws. Other studies involving cement-retained implant prostheses used a range of dental cements; however, some did not specify the type used. Studies reported various prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues such as screw loosening, porcelain fracture, loss of retention, and esthetic concerns. Five studies did not report any prosthodontic maintenance issues during their observation periods. More recent studies also did not report any incidence of screw loosening. Only two studies stated the standardized criteria for reporting their prosthodontic maintenance/ complication issues. CONCLUSIONS With inadequate information and various study designs, it was difficult to compare the prosthodontic outcomes between screw and cement-retained fixed implant prostheses. Both retention mechanisms showed prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues that must be considered and this review showed that the introduction of newer implant components may assist in minimizing these issues. It is also recommended that standardized criteria be used when reporting prosthodontic maintenance/complication issues to allow better comparison of data.

An ageing population poses dental challenges

In this narrative review paper, we summarise what is known about the oral health of older people, with a specific focus on the most common oral conditions in that age group. After that, the implications for older people׳s oral care are considered, along with ways of developing and maintaining a gerodontologically capable and responsive workforce and oral care delivery system.

Finite element analysis of a novel implant distribution to support maxillary overdentures.

PURPOSE To evaluate the biomechanics of a novel implant placement distribution and compare it with that of conventional maxillary overdenture support using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). The application of zirconia implants in the context of this novel design was also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS Detailed FEA models were created to analyze the loading responses of two different distributions of implants to support maxillary overdentures. The two implant distributions were as follows: the conventional design (D1) included four unsplinted implants in the premolar regions, whereas the novel design (D2) included one midpalatal implant, bilateral canine/premolar implants, and one anterior off-center crestal implant. Anatomical models were created with computed tomographic data and static loads were applied axially and obliquely. Von Mises stresses and equivalent strains generated in peri-implant bone and first principal stresses in the implants were calculated, including any denture displacement. RESULTS Comparable stress and strain values were seen in the peri-implant bone for both designs. A significant decrease in the first principal stresses of D2 implants was observed with oblique loads. The maximum equivalent strain produced in the peri-implant region was mostly within the range for bone augmentation. D2 displayed lower maximum displacement values than D1. Maximum tensile stresses in the zirconia implants for either design were well below their fracture strength. CONCLUSIONS A novel four-implant distribution involving midpalatal and crestal implants may be an alternative to the conventional design used for maxillary overdentures. This is particularly relevant when anatomical considerations prevent the placement of four anterior crestal implants. Zirconia implants may also be a valid option for a selected group of patients or for those requesting metal-free restorations. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm these in vitro results.

Titanium versus zirconia implants supporting maxillary overdentures: three-dimensional finite element analysis.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare the stress and strain occurring in peri-implant bone and implants used to support maxillary overdentures. Three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D FEA) was used to compare one-piece zirconia and titanium implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two types of implants were simulated using a 3D FEA model: one-piece zirconia and titanium implants (diameter, 3.8 × 11.5 mm) with 2.25-mm diameter ball abutments. In each simulation four implants were placed bilaterally in the canine/premolar region of an edentulous maxillary model. Static loads were applied axially and 20 degrees buccolingually on the buccal slope of the lingual cusps of posterior teeth of the first quadrant. Von Mises stresses and equivalent strains generated in peri-implant bone and first principal stresses in the implants were calculated. RESULTS Comparable stress and strain values were shown in the peri-implant bone for both types of implants. The maximum equivalent strain produced in the peri-implant region was mostly within the range for bone augmentation. Under oblique loading, maximum von Mises stresses and equivalent strain were more evident at the neck of the most distal implant on the loaded side. Under axial load, the stress and strain were transferred to the peri-implant bone around the apex of the implant. Maximum tensile stresses that developed for either material were well below their fracture strength. The highest stresses were mainly located at the distobuccal region of the neck for the two implant materials under both loading conditions. CONCLUSIONS From a biomechanical point of view, ceramic implants made from yttrium-stabilized tetragonal polycrystalline zirconia may be a potential alternative to conventional titanium implants for the support of overdentures. This is particularly relevant for a select group of patients with a proven allergy to titanium. Prospective clinical studies are still required to confirm these in vitro results. Different simulations presenting various cortical bone thicknesses and implant designs are required to provide a better understanding of the biomechanics of zirconia implants.

Zirconia implants supporting overdentures: a pilot study with novel prosthodontic designs.

Limited clinical research identifies prosthodontic perspectives of novel designs for zirconia implants supporting overdentures. Four pilot study participants were selected before a planned randomized clinical trial on zirconia implants supporting overdentures. Novel designs for maxillary four-implant overdentures (quadrilateral design) and mandibular three-implant overdentures (tripodal design) were used with 28 implants (maxilla, n = 16; mandible, n = 12). Four implants failed to achieve osseointegration prior to loading. At the 1-year follow-up appointment, all implants were surviving, the overdentures were in function, and there were no clinical signs of wear of the attachment system. A proof-of-principle for prosthodontic perspectives of a novel design using one-piece zirconia implants supporting maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures was achieved.

Patients' perspectives on zirconia and titanium implants with a novel distribution supporting maxillary and mandibular overdentures: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES This qualitative study explored the perceptions of edentulous patients regarding their rehabilitation with maxillary and mandibular implant-supported overdentures employing a protocol that featured novel implant sites and distribution. MATERIAL AND METHODS In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 participants who have taken part in a randomized controlled trial. Each received implant overdentures supported by either titanium or zirconia one-piece implants. Participants received four implants in the maxilla and three implants in the mandible. The implant distribution was: in the maxilla, a mid-palatal implant, and three anterior implants in the incisor and first premolar regions; in the mandible, a mid-symphseal implant, and bilateral distal implants in the first molar region. All interviews were conducted by a researcher not involved with the clinical aspect of the randomized controlled trial and were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic inductive analysis approach. RESULTS The perceived advantages of the treatment were functional improvement and increased social confidence. Cost was a significant barrier for edentulous patients seeking implant treatment. Previous experience with complete dentures, age and length of treatment was further factors that influenced decisions regarding prosthodontic rehabilitation. The novel implant protocol was acceptable to patients. CONCLUSIONS Implant overdentures improve the quality of life of edentulous patients. Acceptance of dental implants may be increased by mitigating the cost of treatment. The mid-palatal implant site may be a potential alternative to extensive surgical procedures during the prosthodontic rehabilitation of atrophic maxillary ridges. The mandibular design offers patients the advantages of a removable prosthesis with increased retention.

The One Abutment–One Time Protocol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND The use of definitive abutments (DAs) at time of implant placement has been introduced to overcome limitations of dis/reconnection of healing/provisional abutments (PAs). With little and inconsistent information in the literature regarding the effectiveness of using DAs, the aim of this systematic review is to examine marginal bone and soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, and implant failure rate associated with use of DAs and PAs. METHODS This systematic review was prepared according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and online trial registers were searched for studies comparing use of DAs and PAs. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess selected studies, and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software. RESULTS A total of 1,124 citations were identified. Of these, seven trials with 363 dental implants in 262 participants were included in the analysis. Pooled estimates for marginal bone level changes showed significant differences between the two prosthetic techniques in favor of using DAs. No significant differences were found in soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, or implant failure rate. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this review, DAs appear to be a viable alternative to PAs at time of implant placement. However, favorable changes in peri-implant marginal bone level associated with use of DAs should be viewed with caution as its clinical significance is still uncertain.

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Surgical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background The surgical placement of four maxillary implants for overdentures may not be obligatory when opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures. Purpose To determine 10-year surgical outcomes and implant success of three narrow diameter implants in edentulous maxillae with conventional loading. Materials and Methods Forty participants with mandibular two-implant overdentures were randomly allocated for surgery for maxillary overdentures. Using osteotomes, three implants of similar systems were placed with a one-stage procedure and 12-week loading with splinted and unsplinted prosthodontic designs. Marginal bone and stability measurements were done at surgery, 12 weeks, 1-, 2-, 5-, 7-, 10 years. Results One hundred seventeen implants were placed in 39 participants, with 35 being seen at 1 year; 29 at 2 years; 28 at 5 years; 26 at 7 years; and 23 (59%) at 10 years. Marginal bone loss was 1.35 mm between surgery and 12 weeks; 0.36 mm between 12 weeks and 1 year; 0.48 mm between 1 and 5 years; and 0.22 mm between 5 and 10 years. Implant stability quotients were 56.05, 57.54, 60.88, 58.80, 61.17 at surgery, 12 weeks, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. Four-field tables by implant showed success rates of 82% at 1 year; 69.2% at 2 years; 66.7% at 5 years; 61.5% at 7 years; 51.3% at 10 years. Data showed no differences between surgical technique, systems, or prosthodontic designs. Conclusions Surgical placement with osteotomes of three narrow diameter implants for maxillary overdentures, opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures, is an acceptable approach, subject to strict patient selection. Implant success is independent of prosthodontic design.BACKGROUND The surgical placement of four maxillary implants for overdentures may not be obligatory when opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures. PURPOSE To determine 10-year surgical outcomes and implant success of three narrow diameter implants in edentulous maxillae with conventional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty participants with mandibular two-implant overdentures were randomly allocated for surgery for maxillary overdentures. Using osteotomes, three implants of similar systems were placed with a one-stage procedure and 12-week loading with splinted and unsplinted prosthodontic designs. Marginal bone and stability measurements were done at surgery, 12 weeks, 1-, 2-, 5-, 7-, 10 years. RESULTS One hundred seventeen implants were placed in 39 participants, with 35 being seen at 1 year; 29 at 2 years; 28 at 5 years; 26 at 7 years; and 23 (59%) at 10 years. Marginal bone loss was 1.35 mm between surgery and 12 weeks; 0.36 mm between 12 weeks and 1 year; 0.48 mm between 1 and 5 years; and 0.22 mm between 5 and 10 years. Implant stability quotients were 56.05, 57.54, 60.88, 58.80, 61.17 at surgery, 12 weeks, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. Four-field tables by implant showed success rates of 82% at 1 year; 69.2% at 2 years; 66.7% at 5 years; 61.5% at 7 years; 51.3% at 10 years. Data showed no differences between surgical technique, systems, or prosthodontic designs. CONCLUSIONS Surgical placement with osteotomes of three narrow diameter implants for maxillary overdentures, opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures, is an acceptable approach, subject to strict patient selection. Implant success is independent of prosthodontic design.