19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Modificaciones en el diseño de los implantes subperiósticos personalizados para evitar complicaciones. Presentación de una serie de casos y revisión de la literatura Translated title: Design modifications in subperiosteal implants to avoid complications. Presentation of a case series study and literature review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          RESUMEN Introducción: La reabsorción severa del maxilar en pacientes totalmente edéntulos en ocasiones imposibilita la colocación de implantes endoóseos estándares para rehabilitar la ausencia de dientes. Para este tipo de atrofias tan severas se patentaron en 1938 en Suecia los implantes subperiósticos. Este tipo de implantes subperiósticos personalizados (ISP) han tenido excelentes resultados a lo largo de estos últimos años, pero no están exentos de complicaciones. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es describir las principales complicaciones con este tipo de implantes y cuáles han sido las modificaciones que hemos realizado en el diseño de los mismos para intentar evitarlas. Material y método: Diseñamos un estudio de seguimiento retrospectivo de 15 pacientes con atrofia severa del maxilar superior tratados en 2 centros privados con un ISP en los años 2021 y 2022. Resultados: Los 8 primeros pacientes fueron tratados con un ISP bilateral y los 7 restantes con dos ISP uno a cada lado del maxilar. Todos los pacientes fueron rehabilitados con una prótesis provisional atornillada a las 48 horas de la cirugía y sustituida a los 3 meses por una prótesis fija definitiva. En 5 pacientes (33,33 %) tuvimos complicaciones postoperatorias menores. Conclusiones: A pesar de las limitaciones del estudio consideramos que el uso de ISP en pacientes con atrofia severa del maxilar es un tratamiento predecible y con excelentes resultados. La exposición es la principal complicación en nuestra serie de casos y consideramos que el uso de ISP dobles individuales y de una guía de corte minimizan el riesgo de que aparezca.

          Translated abstract

          ABSTRACT Introduction: Severe resorption of the maxilla in fully edentulous patients sometimes makes it impossible to place standard endoosseous implants to rehabilitate the absence of teeth. For such severe atrophies, subperiosteal implants were patented in 1938 in Sweden. This type of subperiosteal implants have had excellent results over the last few years but are not without complications. The aim of our study is to describe the main complications with this type of implants and which modifications have been made trying to avoid them. Material and method: We designed a retrospective follow-up study of 15 patients with severe upper jaw atrophy treated in 2 private centers with a customized subperiosteal implant in 2021 and 2022, to which we apply a few modifications in the design of the same. Results: The first eight patients were treated with a single bilateral subperiosteal implant and the remaining seven with two subperiosteal implants, one on each side of the maxilla. All patients were treated with a temporary prosthesis bolted 48 hours after surgery and replaced at three months with a definitive prosthesis. In five patients (33.33 %), we had minor postoperative complications. Conclusions: Despite the limitations of the study, we think that the use of customized subperiosteal implants in patients with severe maxillary atrophy is a predictable treatment with excellent results. Exposure is the main complication in our case series, and we consider that the use of individual double subperiosteal implant and a bone cutting guide help to minimize the risk of this complication.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review

          Background The continuous development in dental processing ensures new opportunities in the field of fixed prosthodontics in a complete virtual environment without any physical model situations. The aim was to compare fully digitalized workflows to conventional and/or mixed analog-digital workflows for the treatment with tooth-borne or implant-supported fixed reconstructions. Methods A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar) plus manual search up to 2016–09-16 focusing on RCTs investigating complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics with regard to economics or esthetics or patient-centered outcomes with or without follow-up or survival/success rate analysis as well as complication assessment of at least 1 year under function. The search strategy was assembled from MeSH-Terms and unspecific free-text words: {((“Dental Prosthesis” [MeSH]) OR (“Crowns” [MeSH]) OR (“Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported” [MeSH])) OR ((crown) OR (fixed dental prosthesis) OR (fixed reconstruction) OR (dental bridge) OR (implant crown) OR (implant prosthesis) OR (implant restoration) OR (implant reconstruction))} AND {(“Computer-Aided Design” [MeSH]) OR ((digital workflow) OR (digital technology) OR (computerized dentistry) OR (intraoral scan) OR (digital impression) OR (scanbody) OR (virtual design) OR (digital design) OR (cad/cam) OR (rapid prototyping) OR (monolithic) OR (full-contour))} AND {(“Dental Technology” [MeSH) OR ((conventional workflow) OR (lost-wax-technique) OR (porcelain-fused-to-metal) OR (PFM) OR (implant impression) OR (hand-layering) OR (veneering) OR (framework))} AND {((“Study, Feasibility” [MeSH]) OR (“Survival” [MeSH]) OR (“Success” [MeSH]) OR (“Economics” [MeSH]) OR (“Costs, Cost Analysis” [MeSH]) OR (“Esthetics, Dental” [MeSH]) OR (“Patient Satisfaction” [MeSH])) OR ((feasibility) OR (efficiency) OR (patient-centered outcome))}. Assessment of risk of bias in selected studies was done at a ‘trial level’ including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A judgment of risk of bias was assigned if one or more key domains had a high or unclear risk of bias. An official registration of the systematic review was not performed. Results The systematic search identified 67 titles, 32 abstracts thereof were screened, and subsequently, three full-texts included for data extraction. Analysed RCTs were heterogeneous without follow-up. One study demonstrated that fully digitally produced dental crowns revealed the feasibility of the process itself; however, the marginal precision was lower for lithium disilicate (LS2) restorations (113.8 μm) compared to conventional metal-ceramic (92.4 μm) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) crowns (68.5 μm) (p < 0.05). Another study showed that leucite-reinforced glass ceramic crowns were esthetically favoured by the patients (8/2 crowns) and clinicians (7/3 crowns) (p < 0.05). The third study investigated implant crowns. The complete digital workflow was more than twofold faster (75.3 min) in comparison to the mixed analog-digital workflow (156.6 min) (p < 0.05). No RCTs could be found investigating multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP). Conclusions The number of RCTs testing complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics is low. Scientifically proven recommendations for clinical routine cannot be given at this time. Research with high-quality trials seems to be slower than the industrial progress of available digital applications. Future research with well-designed RCTs including follow-up observation is compellingly necessary in the field of complete digital processing. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Clinical applications and effectiveness of guided implant surgery: a critical review based on randomized controlled trials

            Background Nowadays implant placement protocols are widespread among clinicians all over the world. However, available literature, only partially analyses what can be potential benefits for the clinicians and patients, often focusing just on specific aspects, such as accuracy. The purpose of this review is to compare computer guided implant placement with conventional treatment protocols. Methods A search strategy according to the P-I-C-O format was developed and executed using an electronic MEDLINE plus manual search from 2000 up to December 2016. This review included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on subjects treated with digital workflow for oral implant placement compared to conventional procedures. Data were extracted from eligible papers and analysed. All kinds of outcomes were considered, even patient-related and economical outcomes. Results The search strategy revealed 16 articles; additional manual searches selected further 21 publications. Afterwards the evaluation of articles, only two studies could be selected for subsequent data extraction. The two identified RCTs analysed primary outcomes as prosthesis failure, implant failure, biological or prosthetic complications, and secondary outcomes as periimplant marginal bone loss. One RCT evaluated also the duration of treatment, post-surgical progress, additional treatment costs and patient satisfaction. The other RCT focused instead on evaluating eventual improvement of patient’s quality of life. In both selected studies, were not observed by the authors statistically significant differences between clinical cases treated with digital protocols and those treated with conventional ones. In one RCT, however post-surgical progress evaluation showed more patients’ self-reported pain and swelling in conventional group. Conclusions Within the limitation of this review, based on only two RCTs, the only evidence was that implant survival rate and effectiveness are similar for conventional and digital implant placement procedures. This is also confirmed by many other studies with however minor scientific evidence levels. Reduction of post-operative pain, surgical time and overall costs are discussed. Authors believe that scientific research should focus more in identifying which clinical situations can get greatest benefits from implant guided surgery. This should be done with research protocols such as RCT that assess comprehensively the advantages and disadvantages of fully digital surgical protocols.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Survival and Complications of Zygomatic Implants: An Updated Systematic Review.

              To assess the survival rate of zygomatic implants (ZIs) and the prevalence of complications based on previously published studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                maxi
                Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial
                Rev Esp Cirug Oral y Maxilofac
                Sociedad Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial y de Cabeza y Cuello (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                1130-0558
                2173-9161
                June 2023
                : 45
                : 2
                : 57-63
                Affiliations
                [2] Sevilla orgnameHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena orgdiv1Servicio de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial España
                [3] Arahal, Sevilla orgnameCentro Odontológico Integral Vidadent orgdiv1Servicio de Implantología España
                [1] Cádiz orgnameHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar orgdiv1Servicio de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial España
                [4] Sevilla orgnameClínica Doctor Astolfi orgdiv1Servicio de Implantología España
                Article
                S1130-05582023000200002 S1130-0558(23)04500200002
                10.20986/recom.2023.1447/2023
                2425f6b1-3d80-4973-990b-9050ad2e7af6

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 04 July 2023
                : 02 May 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 22, Pages: 7
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Originales

                regeneración,Implantología,atrofia maxilar,implantes cigomáticos,mallas subperiósticas,implantes customizados,Implantology,maxillary atrophy,bone regeneration,zygomatic implants,subperiostic implant,customized implants

                Comments

                Comment on this article