Cost estimation of single-implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16-22 years of follow-up

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (11) ◽  
pp. 1288-1296 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dierens ◽  
S. Vandeweghe ◽  
J. Kisch ◽  
K. Nilner ◽  
J. Cosyn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Healthy Patient ◽  
Implant Treatment ◽  
Single Implant

Prosthetic Survival and Complication Rate of Single Implant Treatment in the Periodontally Healthy Patient after 16 to 22 Years of Follow-Up

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Dierens ◽  
Hugo De Bruyn ◽  
Jenö Kisch ◽  
Krister Nilner ◽  
Jan Cosyn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complication Rate ◽  
Healthy Patient ◽  
Implant Treatment ◽  
Single Implant

Esthetic Evaluation of Single-Tooth Morse Taper Connection Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets or Healed Sites

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco G. Mangano ◽  
Carlo Mangano ◽  
Massimiliano Ricci ◽  
Rachel L. Sammons ◽  
Jamil A. Shibli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Maxilla ◽  
Single Tooth ◽  
Immediate Implants ◽  
Immediate Implant ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Gingival Biotype ◽  
Implant Treatment ◽  
Single Implant

The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with those placed in fully healed sites of the anterior maxilla. This retrospective study was based on data from patients treated with single-tooth Morse taper connection implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and in fully healed sites of the anterior maxilla. Only single implant treatments were considered with both neighboring teeth present. Additional prerequisites for immediate implant treatment were intact socket walls and a thick gingival biotype. The esthetic outcome was objectively rated using the pink esthetic/white esthetic score (PES/WES). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the PES and the WES between the 2 groups. Twenty-two patients received an immediate implant, and 18 patients had conventional implant surgery. The mean follow-up was 31.09 months (SD 5.57; range 24–46) and 34.44 months (SD 7.10; range 24–48) for immediately and conventionally inserted implants, respectively. No implants were lost. All implants fulfilled the success criteria. The mean PES/WES was 14.50 (SD 2.52; range 9–19) and 15.61 (SD 3.20; range 8–20) for immediately and conventionally placed implants, respectively. Immediate implants had a mean PES of 7.45 (SD 1.62; range 4–10) and a mean WES of 7.04 (SD 1.29; range 5–10). Conventional implants had a mean PES of 7.83 (SD 1.58; range 4–10) and a mean WES of 7.77 (SD 1.66; range 4–10). The difference between the 2 groups was not significant. Immediate and conventional single implant treatment yielded comparable esthetic outcomes.

scholarly journals On the Clinical Outcome of Different Single Implant Treatment Modalities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Björn Gjelvold
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Position ◽  
Guided Surgery ◽  
Surgical Guides ◽  
Implant Treatment ◽  
Single Implant

Today there are several treatment techniques available to replace a missing tooth. Since the beginning of the 1990s, it has become increasingly common to treat individual tooth loss with dental implants. Important patient factors are survival, success, functionality, aesthetics, oral health and quality of life. The range of indications and possibilities for implant treatment has broadened compared to the originally proposed treatment indications. A variety of methods, components and materials are available today. Improvements of the implant surface have led to shorter healing periods, which has affected the overall treatment time. Methods for computer-assisted implant planning and surgical guides have been developed to improve treatment planning. Several techniques are involved in the manufacturing of implant-supported single crowns, from the traditional plaster models, wax, casting and porcelain veneering to 3D scanning, computer aided design and manufacturing. It is important that all these treatment modalities are evaluated in a systematic and scientific way to ensure that the treatment given is the best one possible according to the individual conditions that exist. The general aim of this project was to evaluate the treatment outcome between different treatment modalities for single dental implants. Study I aims to retrospectively evaluate implant survival. Patient reported outcome measures, marginal bone loss (MBL), clinical and esthetic outcomes following conventional single implant treatment. The aim of study II, a prospective randomized clinical study, was to compare the overall treatment outcome following immediate loading (IL) and delayed loading (DL) of single implants. In study III the aim was to in a vitro setting evaluate the deviation in final dental implant position after the use of surgical guides fabricated from two different desktop 3D printers using a digital workflow. For study IV the aim was to, in a non-randomized study, compare clinical and aesthetic outcomes between immediately loaded single implants placed with and without a fully guided-surgery procedure (DIL). In study I a total of 85 implants were examined after a mean follow-up time of 7.51 years. The 5-year implant survival rate was98.4% (95% CI: 96.3% - 100%), with a crown survival rate of91.8% (95% CI: 86.3%-97.3%). Overall mean MBL was -0.13 mm. Final and initial total Pink esthetic score (PES) were 9.61 and 11.49 (P<.001) Mean White esthetic score (WES) was 6.48 at final follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for soft tissue and implant-supported crown aesthetics were 73.5 and 82.1 (maximum score 100). A oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) 14 score of 16.11 was observed at the final follow-up. Study II and IV found implant survival rates of 100%, 96% and 90.5 % for IL, DL and DIL, respectively, after 1-year. No statistically significant differences were found for MBL, PES, WES and OHIP-14after 1-year. Statistically significant lower papilla index scores were found for the IL. Overall statistically significant improvement inPES, WES and OHIP-14 were found over time. In the DIL group a moderate correlation between aesthetics and deviation in fixture position was found. For Study III a statistically significant difference between stereolithography and direct light processing (DLP) was found fordeviation at entry point (P = .023) and the vertical implant position(P = .009). Overall lower deviations were found for the guides from the DLP printer, with the exception of deviation in horizontal implant position.The results from these studies suggest that good clinical results can be achieved with different treatment modalities for single implants. Positive advantages with immediate loading and guided surgery is primarily seen in the early faces of the treatment procedure only. Care needs to be exerted with technically complicated treatment procedures as the effect on implant survival should not be underestimated. Further studies have to be performed to evaluate guided surgery and immediate loading to identify possible factors effecting survival.

A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 203-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Jemt ◽  
P. Pettersson
Keyword(s):  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Implant Treatment ◽  
Single Implant

scholarly journals Aesthetic Outcomes and Peri-Implant Health of Angled Screw Retained Implant Restorations Compared with Cement Retained Crowns: Medium Term Follow-Up

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Livia Nastri ◽  
Ludovica Nucci ◽  
Vincenzo Grassia ◽  
Rino Miraldi
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Technical Solution ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Single Tooth ◽  
Natural Teeth ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Single Implant ◽  
Single Tooth Implant

Single tooth implant restorations in the aesthetic area are a demanding challenge. If a complete osseointegration is mandatory, the final result has to result in a higher standard of biomimetic and soft tissue health among natural teeth. This outcome is traditionally pursued by cementing crowns over individualized abutments. However, in recent years, the need for controlling peri-implant health and the preference towards a retrievable solution has led to an increase in screw-retained crowns, which is not always applicable when the implant axis is not ideal. In the aesthetic area, the use of a novel technical solution represented by the angled screw channel (ASC) of the abutment has been proposed in order to match the advantages of the screwed solution with the aesthetic demands. The aim of this study was to compare ASC crowns to cemented crowns (CC) in single implant restorations using the white esthetic score (WES) and pink esthetic score (PES) at the crown delivery and at a follow-up of a minimum of 2 years. Peri-implant health and marginal bone loss (MBL) were also evaluated. The mean follow-up was 44.3 months, with a mean MBL of 0.22 mm in the ASC group and 0.29 mm in the CC group. The total WES/PES score was 16.6 for ASC, compared with 17.3 for CC at baseline, and 16.2 and 17.1, respectively, at follow-up. Both of the groups reached a high WES/PES, and this was maintained over time, without signs of peri-implant diseases or bone loss, regardless of the choice of connection. In conclusion, ASC can be adopted in cases where the implant axis is not ideal, with aesthetic and functional results that are comparable to implants restored by cemented crowns.

scholarly journals COVID-19 in the Healthy Patient Population

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2764-2775
Author(s):  
Diana Maria Ronderos Botero ◽  
Alaa Mabrouk Salem Omar ◽  
Haozhe Keith Sun ◽  
Nikhitha Mantri ◽  
Ked Fortuzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Population ◽  
Cluster Model ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Inflammatory Cells ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Healthy Patient ◽  
Comorbid Conditions ◽  
Retrospective Study Design ◽  
Cluster 2

Objective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can infect patients in any age group including those with no comorbid conditions. Understanding the demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of these patients is important toward developing successful treatment strategies. Approach and Results: In a retrospective study design, consecutive patients without baseline comorbidities hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Patients were subdivided into ≤55 and >55 years of age. Predictors of in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation were analyzed in this patient population, as well as subgroups. Stable parameters in overall and subgroup models were used to construct a cluster model for phenotyping of patients. Of 1207 COVID-19–positive patients, 157 met the study criteria (80≤55 and 77>55 years of age). Most reliable predictors of outcomes overall and in subgroups were age, initial and follow-up d -dimer, and LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Their predictive cutoff values were used to construct a cluster model that produced 3 main clusters. Cluster 1 was a low-risk cluster and was characterized by younger patients who had low thrombotic and inflammatory features. Cluster 2 was intermediate risk that also consisted of younger population that had moderate level of thrombosis, higher inflammatory cells, and inflammatory markers. Cluster 3 was a high-risk cluster that had the most aggressive thrombotic and inflammatory feature. Conclusions: In healthy patient population, COVID-19 remains significantly associated with morbidity and mortality. While age remains the most important predictor of in-hospital outcomes, thromboinflammatory interactions are also associated with worse clinical outcomes regardless of age in healthy patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document