Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

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

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant designs and surface modifications have been developed for improving clinical outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2003, 2005 and 2007.

Related collections

Most cited references 94

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A classification of the edentulous jaws.

J.I. Cawood, R.A. Howell (1988)

A classification of the edentulous jaws has been developed based on a randomised cross-sectional study from a sample of 300 dried skulls. It was noted that whilst the shape of the basalar process of the mandible and maxilla remains relatively stable, changes in shape of the alveolar process is highly significant in both the vertical and horizontal axes. In general, the changes of shape of the alveolar process follows a predictable pattern. Such a classification serves to simplify description of the residual ridge and thereby assist communication between clinicians; aid selection of the appropriate surgical prosthodontic technique; offer an objective baseline from which to evaluate and compare different treatment methods; and help in deciding on interceptive techniques to preserve the alveolar process. An awareness of the pattern of resorption that takes place in various parts of the edentulous jaws, enables clinicians to anticipate and avert future problems.

0 comments Cited 171 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Implant survival in patients with type 2 diabetes: placement to 36 months.

Alan H Morris, Andrea Winkler, S Ochi (2000)

Because the life expectancy of individuals continues to increase, dentists providing dental implant treatment can expect to see an increasing number of patients with diabetes mellitus. Today, there are little data available concerning the clinical outcomes involving the use of implant treatment for patients with diabetes mellitus. There are three types of diabetes mellitus: Type 1 (insulin dependent), Type 2 (non-insulin dependent), and gestational. Because of possible complications from patients with diabetes mellitus, they are excluded from participation in most clinical studies of endosseous dental implant survival. This study attempted to determine if Type 2 diabetes represents a significant risk factor to the long-term clinical performance of dental implants, using the comprehensive DICRG database. Diabetes was a possible exclusion criterion; however, the final decision on Type 2 patients was left to the dental implant team at the research center. A total of 2,887 implants (663 patients) were surgically placed, restored, and followed for a period of 36 months. Of these, 2,632 (91%) implants were placed in non-diabetic patients and 255 (8.8%) in Type 2 patients. Failures (survival) were compared using descriptive data. Possible clustering was also studied. A model assuming independence showed that implants in Type 2 patients have significantly more failures (P = 0.020). However, if correlations among implants within the patient are considered, the significance level becomes marginal (P = 0.046). The experience of the surgeon did not produce a clinically significant improvement in implant survival. The use of chlorhexidine rinses following implant placement resulted in a slight improvement (2.5%) in survival in non-Type 2 patients and a greater improvement in Type 2 patients (9.1%); the use of preoperative antibiotics improved survival by 4.5% in non-Type 2 patients and 10.5% in Type 2 patients. The use of HA-coated implants improved survival by 13.2% in Type 2 diabetics. Type 2 diabetic patients tend to have more failures than non-diabetic patients; however, the influence was marginally significant. These findings need to be confirmed by other scientific clinical studies with a larger Type 2 diabetic sample size.

0 comments Cited 34 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial to evaluate bone preservation using implants with different geometry placed into extraction sockets in the maxilla.

Mariano Sanz, Denis Cecchinato, J Lindhe … (2009)

The primary objective of this study was to determine the association between the size of the void established by using two different implant configurations and the amount of buccal/palatal bone loss that occurred during 16 weeks of healing following their installation into extraction sockets. The clinical trial was designed as a prospective, randomized-controlled parallel-group multicenter study. Adults in need of one or more implants replacing teeth to be removed in the maxilla within the region 15-25 were recruited. Following tooth extraction, the site was randomly allocated to receive either a cylindrical (group A) or a tapered implant (group B). After implant installation, a series of measurements were made to determine the dimension of the ridge and the void between the implant and the extraction socket. These measurements were repeated at the re-entry procedure after 16 weeks. The study demonstrated that the removal of single teeth and the immediate placement of an implant resulted in marked alterations of the dimension of the buccal ridge (43% and 30%) and the horizontal (80-63%) as well as the vertical (69-65%) gap between the implant and the bone walls. Although the dimensional changes were not significantly different between the two-implant configurations, both the horizontal and the vertical gap changes were greater in group A than in group B. Implant placement into extraction sockets will result in significant bone reduction of the alveolar ridge.