Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry

Early in the development of implant technology it became apparent that conventional dental imaging techniques were limited for evaluating patients for implant surgery. During the treatment planning phase, the recipient bed is routinely assessed by visual examination and palpation, as well as by periapical and panoramic radiology. These two imaging modalities provide a two-dimensional image of mesial-distal and occlusal-apical dimensions of the edentulous regions where implants might be placed. When adequate occlusal-apical bone height is available for endosteal implants, the buccal-lingual width and angulation of the available bone are the most important criteria for implant selection and success. However, neither buccal-lingual width nor angulation can be visualized on most traditional radiographs. Although clinical examination and traditional radiographs may be adequate for patients with wide residual ridges that exhibit sufficient bone crestal to the mandibular nerve and maxillary sinus, these methods do not allow for precise measurement of the buccolingual dimension of the bone or assessment of the location of unanticipated undercuts. For these concerns, it is necessary to view the recipient site in a plane perpendicular to a curved plane through the arch of the maxilla or mandible in the region of the proposed implants. Implant dentists soon recognized that, for optimum placement of implants, cross-sectional views of the maxilla and mandible were the ideal means of providing necessary pre-operative information. Today, the two most often employed and most applicable radiographic studies for implant treatment planning are the panoramic radiograph and tomography. Although distortion can be a major problem with panoramic radiographs, when performed properly they can provide valuable information, and are both readily accessible and cost efficient. To help localize potential implant sites and assist in obtaining accurate measurements, it is recommended that surgical stents be used with panoramic radiographs. In simple cases, where a limited number of implants are to be placed, panoramic radiography and/or tomography may be used to obtain a view of the arch of the jaw in the area of interest. For complex, cases, where multiple implants are required, the CT scan imaging procedure is recommended. Because of its ability to reconstruct a fully three dimensional model of the maxilla and mandible, CT provides a highly sophisticated format for precisely defining the jaw structure and locating critical anatomic structures. The use of CT scans in conjunction with software that renders immediate "treatment plans" using the most real and accurate information provides the most effective radiographic modality currently available for the evaluation of patients for oral implants. To follow patients after implant surgery, DSR can be helpful by addressing the limitations of other radiographic modalities in detecting postoperative changes. By eliminating unchanged information, DSR allows the clinician's eye to focus on actual changes that have occurred between the recordings of two images.     

Altered patterns of DNA methylation on chromosomes from leukemia cell lines: identification of 5-methylcytosines by indirect immunodetection

The feasibility of implant treatment in patients after oral ablative tumor surgery has not yet been investigated with consideration of the requisite high periodontal standards. A report on this topic has to deal not only with implant survival but also with implant health, bone response, soft tissue health, failure pattern, time of failure, and ease of restoration. For the assessment of an implant system, an overview must be accomplished that takes into account the different restorations used and their interaction with the implant system that was used. This study presents the Bone-Lock implant system (Howmedica Leibinger GmbH, Freiburg, Germany) in a retrospective investigation after 5 years of follow-up with special emphasis on the prosthetic restorations used following resection of oral malignancies. From early in 1990 through June 1996, we inserted 210 dental endosteal Bone-Lock implants (58 patients) after oral tumor resectioning. Included in the study were 45 patients with 162 implants and prosthetic restorations that had been loaded for 1 year (dentures retained by telescopic or bar-clip or ball attachments, implant-supported prostheses, tooth-to-implant connected bridges). Regular follow-up consisted of evaluation of the Plaque Index (Silness and L?e) and of the Sulcus Bleeding Index (L?e), measurements of pocket probing depth, implant mobility (by means of the Periotest method), bone resorption (according to X-ray findings), and a questionnaire that registered patient satisfaction. The results were evaluated for each restoration and were compared with baseline standards. The overall 5-year survival rate was 83.2%. For implants that had been in place for over 365 days, the survival rate was 93%. The investigation showed that after resection of oral malignancies, patients could be treated with dental implants and superstructures with long-term efficacy similar to that found in healthy subjects considering internationally accepted standards. Implant treatment in tumor patients appeared to offer the most positive periodontic results when use of bar-clip or telescope-retained overdentures was involved. The patient satisfaction level with the described prosthodontic treatment was satisfactory.     

An interactive, parallel, three-dimensional fast Fourier transform convolution dose calculation using a supercomputer

After cancer treatment in the head and neck area, mastication and speech are often affected. Some of the problems encountered can be solved by adequate dental rehabilitation. However, dental rehabilitation is often compromised for various reasons. The change in anatomy due to surgery often results in lack of denture-bearing mucosa. The effects of radiotherapy on the salivary glands and the mucosa result in dry oral tissue and diminished retention of removable dentures. Osseointegrated oral implants can help to solve these problems. Although implant treatment for patients with cancer of the head and neck is covered by the Dutch national health insurance, and there is therefore no financial obstacle, implants have not, so far, been widely used with these patients. In order to establish the possible reasons for this, an analysis was performed. Retrospective data on 95 consecutive patients were collected from records. The indication for the use of oral osseointegrated implants was reviewed. Analysis of the data showed that 45% did not need specific prosthetic rehabilitation. An indication for the use of osseointegrated implants was found in 25% of the patients. For various reasons, only 3% actually received implants. In striving to completely rehabilitate a cancer patient, the possible use of osseointegrated oral implants should be evaluated before the initial oncological treatment begins. The insertion of implants during the initial surgical procedure should be considered more often, with a view to reducing the number of surgical procedures.     

Long-term follow-up on hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical dental implants: a comparison between developmental and recent periods

PURPOSE: To compare success rates for dental implants placed from 1985 through 1988 and from 1989 through 1991, and to investigate the factors associated with success or failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical implants placed from 1985 through 1991 were followed yearly. Lifetable survival analyses compared implant success for a "developmental period" from 1985 through 1988 (4 to 8 years follow-up) and a "recent period" from 1989 through 1991 (1 to 4 years follow-up). Reasons for success or failure, time from implant placement to removal related to failure reason, outcome after implant removal, and a morbidity analysis are included. RESULTS: The 7 to 8-year cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the developmental period (maxilla and mandible combined) was 86.5%; it was 84.2% for all maxillary implants and 87.5% for all mandibular implants. The cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the recent period was 97.5%; it was 97.5% for all maxillary implants and 97.6% for all mandibular implants. The difference between the two periods was statistically significant only for the anterior maxilla. Regression analysis on the interval success rates indicates that interval failure did not follow a linear relationship with time. The most common reasons associated with failure were lack of keratinized gingiva, poor oral hygiene, mechanical overload, and malposition. CONCLUSION: Comparison with previously reported cumulative success rates indicated learning curve experiences comparable with other implant systems. Improvements in hardware, surgical and prosthetic techniques, and patient selection have led to an improvement in success rates with the recent period implants.     

Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology

The aim of this review was to offer a critical evaluation of the literature and to provide the clinician with scientifically-based diagnostic criteria for monitoring the implant condition. The review presents the current opinions on definitions of osseointegration and implant failure. Further, distinctions between failed and failing implants are discussed together with the presently used parameters to assess the implant status. Radiographic examinations together with implant mobility tests seem to be the most reliable parameters in the assessment of the prognosis for osseointegrated implants. On the basis of 73 published articles, the rates of early and late failures of Br?nemark implants, used in various anatomical locations and clinical situations, were analyzed using a metanalytic approach. Biologically related implant failures calculated on a sample of 2,812 implants were relatively rare: 7.7% over a 5-year period (bone graft excluded). The predictability of implant treatment was remarkable, particularly for partially edentulous patients, who showed failure rates about half those of totally edentulous subjects. Our analysis also confirmed (for both early and late failures) the general trend of maxillas, having almost 3 times more implant losses than mandibles, with the exception of the partially edentulous situation which displayed similar failure rates both in upper and lower jaws. Surgical trauma together with anatomical conditions are believed to be the most important etiological factors for early implant losses (3.60% of 16,935 implants). The low prevalence of failures attributable to peri-implantitis found in the literature together with the fact that, in general, partially edentulous patients have less resorbed jaws, speak in favour of jaw volume, bone quality, and overload as the three major determinants for late implant failures in the Br?nemark system. Conversely, the ITI system seemed to be characterized by a higher prevalence of losses due to peri-implantitis. These differences may be attributed to the different implant designs and surface characteristics. On the basis of the published literature, there appears to be a number of scientific issues which are yet not fully understood. Therefore, it is concluded that further clinical follow-up and retrieval studies are required in order to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisms for failure of osseointegrated implants.     

Association between marginal bone loss around osseointegrated mandibular implants and smoking habits: a 10-year follow-up study

While many factors are conceivable, occlusal loading and plaque-induced inflammation are frequently stated as the most important ones negatively affecting the prognosis of oral implants. Currently, little is known about the relative importance of such factors. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of smoking and other possibly relevant factors on bone loss around mandibular implants. The participants were 45 edentulous patients, 21 smokers and 24 non-smokers, who were followed for 10-year period after treatment with a fixed implant-supported prosthesis in the mandible. The peri-implant bone level was measured on intraoral radiographs, information about smoking habits was based on a careful interview, and oral hygiene was evaluated from clinical registration of plaque accumulation. Besides standard statistical methods, multiple linear regression models were constructed for estimation of the relative influence of some factors on peri-implant bone loss. The long-term results of the implant treatment were good, and only three implants (1%) were lost. The mean marginal bone loss around the mandibular implants was very small, about 1 mm for the entire 10-year period. It was greater in smokers than in non-smokers and correlated to the amount of cigarette consumption. Smokers with poor oral hygiene showed greater marginal bone loss around the mandibular implants than those with good oral hygiene. Oral hygiene did not significantly affect bone loss in non-smokers. Multivariate analyses showed that smoking was the most important factor among those analyzed for association with peri-implant bone loss. The separate models for smokers and non-smokers revealed that oral hygiene had a greater impact on peri-implant bone loss among smokers than among non-smokers. This study showed that smoking was the most important factor affecting the rate of peri-implant bone loss, and that oral hygiene also had an influence, especially in smokers, while other factors, e.g., those associated with occlusal loading, were of minor importance. These results indicate that smoking habits should be included in analyses of implant survival and peri-implant bone loss.     

Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature

PURPOSE: This article reviews the current knowledge about the influence of surgical factors on implant failure in routine cases and in those where implants have been used in conjunction with bone augmentation procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical reports published in major scientific journals served as the basis for this review. RESULTS: With few exceptions, most clinical reports were on screw-shaped titanium implants. High failure rates are associated with poor bone quality and the use of short implants in the athrophic maxilla, irradiation, and bone-grafting procedures of the athrophic maxilla. Evidence for high long-term failure rates of press-fit cylinders was found. Moreover, limited clinical experience, lack of preoperative antibiotics, and smoking may lead to higher failure rates. CONCLUSION: There is a need for further research to increase the success rates in the severely resorbed maxilla. Because of a lack of proper documentation with respect to the great majority of currently used oral implant designs, the influence of different factors and their long-term results remain unknown.     

Optimizing multiple individual anterior implant restorations with a new generation implant-abutment system; IMZTwinPlus: a case report and treatment rationale

A 53-year-old male with a history of initial oral facial trauma causing the loss of three maxillary incisors, multiple failures of tooth-borne fixed prosthetic reconstructions, and a resultant condition of structural failure of abutment cuspids and lateral incisor was to be retreated. The case contained numerous anatomic and dimensional constraints. The patient's desire to achieve a long-term, dependable prosthetic reconstruction prompted professional consideration of incorporating implants to lend structural support in the edentulous area. An extensive review of current implant-abutment options and their single-tooth implant replacement design and treatment rationales was conducted. The IMZ Generation III (IMZTwinPlus) implant system, a nonhex system, was chosen for treatment of the case of report to optimize mechanics, biomechanics, and esthetics for multiple individual-tooth implant replacement.     

Dental implant outcomes in postmenopausal women undergoing hormone replacement

To determine if hormone supplementation reduces the risk of failure for osseointegration of dental implants in postmenopausal women, the treatment outcomes of 116 women older than age 50, treated with 450 endosseous dental implants, were analyzed in this retrospective study. The findings indicated that hormone replacement therapy may not be linked with improved outcomes of endosseous dental implant treatment in postmenopausal women. Smoking, however, appears to significantly increase the implant failure rate in the group observed in this study.     

Resonance frequency analysis: measuring implant stability and osseointegration

Achievement and maintenance of implant stability are prerequisites for long-term positive outcomes for osseointegrated implants. Thus, implant stability is the key to clinical success. Until recently, it was not possible for the clinician to predictably distinguish implants with different degrees of stability. Because there seems to be a correlation between implant failure and bone properties, it is possible that clinically firms implants with poor stability are more prone to failure than more stable implants. This article discusses the development and possible future use of a novel technique for clinical measurement of implant stability and osseointegration--resonance frequency analysis.     

Advances in the identification of Dirofilaria repens and Dirofilaria immitis by a PCR-based approach

Correct placement of implants is facilitated by the parameters that are already established, dictated by the struts and borders of the existing implant frame. The root-form implants should be: Contained in the anterior symphysis of the mandible. Completely encompassed in bone, without any contact with the Vitallium frame. As long as possible, to enhance biomechanical support of the superimposed bar and prosthesis. Evenly dispersed, in order to support a Hader bar. Independent of the previous implant system. Placed to fill the anteroposterior spread as completely as possible. The rationale and approach should comprise these requirements in order to achieve a predictable solution to mechanical failure of a subperiosteal implant, in an efficient manner, with the least possible trauma to the patient.     

Treatment planning and surgical considerations for placement of wide-body implants

Partially edentulous implant treatment has evolved from using a standard diameter fixture for every tooth site to selection of the implant diameter according to the surgical demands, space available, and the dimension of the final prosthetic tooth. The advantages are functional, improved emergence profiles for esthetics, and optimal contours for oral hygiene maintenance. This article reviews presurgical treatment planning for wide-diameter implants.     

Maintenance and treatment of the ailing and failing implant

Due to the pathologic nature of oral bacteria, the partially edentulous implant patient is at a greater risk than the fully edentulous. Peri-implantitis and/or retrograde peri-implantitis can result in ultimate loss of the implant fixture. It is important that the implant dentist understand the difference between the ailing implant, the failing implant, and the failed implant. This article discusses the pathologic diseases that affect dental implants and how to treat the "infected" implant (degranulation and detoxification) for titanium and hydroxylapatite-coated implants. Implant maintenance, including hand or motorized brushes, flosses, and oral rinses (chlorhexidine, 0.2%) will also be presented.     

Implant reconstruction of the jaws and craniofacial skeleton

Full oral rehabilitation with a high degree of success is now possible with osseointegrated implants. Osseointegration is a direct connection between living bone and the titanium implant at the level of the light microscope. Osseointegrated implants are currently used to replace single teeth, support fixed bridges and stabilize full dentures. These implants can also be placed extraorally for attachment of facial prosthesis. The surgical technique used to place implants intraorally into jaws or facial skeleton is performed in two stages using a local anesthetic and/or conscious sedation. During stage I surgery, holes are placed into the jaw using a series of gradually larger diameter burs until the desired diameter and depth of the bony preparation is achieved. The implant is then placed. The implant must remain undisturbed for 4 months for osseointegration to take place. Stage II surgery is then required to remove the mucosa over the implant and place the transmucosal abutment. After 1-2 weeks of healing, the restorative dentist can take an impression and fabricate the prosthesis. On occasion, it is necessary to augment the height and width of the atrophic jaw with autogenous or allogeneic bone grafts prior to implant placement. Bone grafts are sometimes placed on the floor of the nose or the floor of the maxillary sinus. Guided tissue regeneration is a technique used to generate bone within bony defects adjacent to implants. With long-term rates of success (5 years) of 99% for implants placed in the mandible and 95% for those placed in the maxilla, reconstruction of the jaws and cranial facial skeleton with osseointegrated implants has become the treatment of choice.     

A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Br?nemark implant

A proposed protocol and differentiated success criteria for long-term evaluation of oral implants are presented. The protocol and criteria were applied to a retrospective patient material treated during a 1-year period and followed for 5 years. The protocol comprised a two-stage analysis of the collected clinical data. First, a quantitative analysis of the outcome was made using a life table. Based on the information obtained during the follow-up, each implant was categorized into one of three groups: unaccounted for, failure, or survival. A qualitative analysis of the survival group was then performed by active testing against defined criteria. Depending on the modes of clinical and radiographic examinations and their results, surviving implants were either further assigned to one of three success grades or remained in the survival group. The data are presented in a four-field table at one level of success. Strict success criteria together with individual stability testing and radiographic examination of each consecutive implant should be used when a new implant system is evaluated or when a new application is explored. Radiography alone and more moderate success criteria may be used to document routine treatments, provided that an already well-documented implant system is studied.     

Practicing implant dentistry profitably

The success of dental implants has opened up countless treatment possibilities for restorative dentists to offer to their patients. Just as our clinical paradigms have had to change because of this new technology, so too must our paradigms concerning the way we communicate with our patients change if we are to get them to say "yes" to treatment that we know that they need. Success in clinical treatment using implants requires a systematic approach. A systematic approach to communicating with your patients will allow you to have the same high degree of success with treatment acceptance that is possible with dental implants. The key to the systems we have discussed is Relationship Centered Care. A relationship is fostered and enhanced through a Comprehensive Examination Process, a structured Consultation Process utilizing the influencing process and Financial Arrangements that allow the patient to receive what they want while the office maintains the profitability that it needs. A system for calculating rational fees can be utilized that allows the practice to have control over an area that traditionally was controlled by anecdotal factors. The Pride Institute has developed this material and is presenting it to the profession so that restorative dentists can truly practice implant dentistry profitably.     

Long-term evaluation of the use of coralline hydroxyapatite in orthognathic surgery

PURPOSE: This prospective study was designed to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic results of porous block hydroxyapatite (PBHA) used as a synthetic bone graft in orthognathic surgery and craniofacial augmentation. PATIENTS AND MATERIALS: A total of 245 consecutive patients were treated initially. Inclusion criteria for this study included a minimum clinical and radiographic follow-up of 5 years. In addition, all patients with known implant failures were included regardless of whether they met the study criteria. There were 111 patients that met the criteria for inclusion in this study. All patients had undergone orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation and had had inlay or onlay PBHA implants placed. Ninety-six percent of the implants were placed through an intraoral approach. Long-term postoperative radiographs were visually compared with immediate postoperative radiographs for implant position, stability, resorption, and other significant radiographic changes. The clinical examination evaluated for signs and symptoms of infection, wound dehiscence, implant exposure, implant displacement, changes in the overlying mucosa, and development of oronasal or oroantral fistulae. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-one implants were placed: 403 in the maxilla, 44 in the mandible, and 24 in the periorbital region. There were 289 implants placed in direct communication with the maxillary sinus. The average follow-up time was 7.2 years (range, 5.0 to 10.3 years). Twenty-three implants (4.9%) were removed during the evaluation period. Lateral maxillary wall grafting had 95.7% success, with nine implants being lost in three patients. One chin implant was removed because of dissatisfaction with the aesthetics. Seven (14%) midpalatal implants used for maxillary expansion were lost, primarily because of exposure of the implant to the oral or nasal cavity at the time of surgery. When PBHA was used for alveolar cleft grafting, there was a 100% failure rate. CONCLUSION: The use of PBHA as a bone graft substitute in orthognathic surgery and for facial augmentation showed a high percentage of success and efficacy. However, adequate soft tissue coverage in the nasal floor and on the palate are paramount for success of midpalatal implants. PBHA should not be used for alveolar cleft grafting. Rigid fixation for inlay implants in the maxilla is important to provide stress shielding of the material and minimize micromovement during the initial healing phase.     

Migration and biodegradation of free silicone from silicone gel-filled implants after long-term implantation

In vivo 1H NMR chemical shift imaging (CSI), 1H NMR localized spectroscopy (STEAM) and multinuclear NMR spectroscopy (29Si, 13C, 1H) were used to characterize the aging process of silicone gel-filled implants in a rat model after long-term implantation. Although no significant changes could be observed in the implants or surrounding tissue by in vivo 1H chemical shift imaging, in vivo 1H localized spectroscopy of the livers from the longer term population revealed the presence of silicone. Ex vivo 29Si spectroscopy of the liver, spleen, and the capsule formed around the 9 and 12 month implants clearly demonstrated and confirmed for the first time that a significant amount of free silicone migrates from silicone gel-filled implants. Also, these results show that silicones are not metabolically inert, and their biodegradation in tissue and within the implant can be monitored after 9 and 12 months by changes in the 29Si chemical shifts seen in corresponding ex vivo spectra. The NMR findings are supported by those obtained by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Silicone aging changes not only the chemical composition of the gel, but also its proton T2 relaxation times, which increase with long implantation times. The three dimensional structure of the gel disintegrates (i.e., polymer chain rupture), increasing the molecular mobility of the polymer and, consequently, its protons T2 values. The relaxation data we obtained reflect this in vivo degradation, especially in the case of implant rupture. Additionally, small concentrations of fat in the silicone gel were found within the implants. The presence of these lipophilic substances also might increase the T2 values (plasticizer effect). These findings may assist in evaluating the implant integrity and disease symptoms related to their presence in humans.     

Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment

There are inherent biomechanical differences in the implant treatment of completely edentulous arches and posterior partially edentulous segments. The partial prosthesis does not benefit from cross-arch stabilization and is, therefore, more susceptible to bending loads. Because of the difference in mobility between teeth and implants, implants may carry a major share of load when mixed with teeth in the same quadrant. However, the frequency of implant overload in posterior partial restorations is low, and, with appropriate treatment planning, overload in these situations is almost always preventable. A checklist procedure is proposed to help the clinician enumerate and evaluate deleterious load factors. By screening patients for such factors in advance, the clinician may identify and avoid potential overload situations when conceiving and fabricating implant-supported posterior partial prostheses. A second checklist, for use at follow-up appointments, lists alarm factors that serve as an early warning of overload once the prosthesis is in place.     

Biomechanical advantages of wide-diameter implants

In implant cases in which bone quantity and interdental space are sufficient, wide-diameter implants may be preferable to standard-size implants in restoring the partially edentulous patient. Although wide-diameter implants are often considered for their esthetic possibilities, they can also offer important biomechanical advantages, particularly in reducing the magnitude of stress delivered to various parts of the implant and in improving stability. In this article, standard 3.7-mm- and wide 4.7-mm-diameter implants are compared and discussed.