scholarly journals Survey of Dental Implant and Restoration Selection by Prosthodontists in Dubai

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Fatma Al Saleh ◽  
Moosa AbuZayeda ◽  
Sudarat Kiat-amnuay ◽  
Alexander Milosevic
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses ◽  
Implant Dentistry ◽  
Implant Restoration ◽  
Implant Loading ◽  
Oral Conditions ◽  
Single Crowns

Background. With various surgical and prosthetic component designs being introduced in dental implants, decisions have to be made when choosing a system and a certain prosthodontic protocol. A survey of implant prosthodontic specialists has not been previously performed in the Middle East. Aim. This study aimed to determine selection criteria and choice of dental implants and restorations by prosthodontic specialists in the Emirate of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Materials and Methods. A validated 16-item questionnaire was used in the survey which included demographic information, implant training and experience, implant treatment planning, implant restoration, and implant system preference. The research protocol was approved by the Research and Ethics Committees of Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine and Dubai Health Authority. Prosthodontists were identified from regulatory authority websites and contacted by e-mail with the questionnaire attached. Results. A total of 84.6% (77) of the registered prosthodontists in Dubai completed the questionnaire with 66.2% reported practicing implant dentistry. Out of which, 54.9% reported surgically placing dental implants and 45.1% restore them only prosthetically. Prefabricated metal abutments were the most commonly selected abutments for single crowns (76.0%) and for fixed dental prostheses (66.7%). Screw retention is preferred mostly for single crowns (68.0%) and fixed dental prostheses (74.0%). Locators were the most commonly selected type of attachment for implant-retained/supported overdentures (49.0%). Conventional loading was the most selected type of loading in all oral conditions. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that most prosthodontists in Dubai practice implant dentistry and more than half surgically place dental implants. Prefabricated metal abutments are the most selected type of abutments. Most prosthodontists use screw-retained implant restorations and prefer locator attachments for implant-retained/supported overdentures. Conventional loading is the most preferred implant loading method in all oral conditions. Implant company/system selections are various and there is no major preference for a certain system. The majority of prosthodontists select implant systems based on implant features, literature review, and simplicity of restorative kit.

Prosthetic Rehabilitation of a Patient Diagnosed With Sarcoidosis Using Dental Implants: A Clinical Case Report

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-243
Author(s):  
Martin James ◽  
Jay Matani ◽  
Shakeel Shahdad
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Tooth Loss ◽  
Systemic Disease ◽  
Anterior Maxilla ◽  
Maxillary Central Incisor ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses ◽  
Implant Restoration ◽  
Augmentation Procedure

No previously published studies have reported on the placement and restoration of dental implants in a patient diagnosed with sarcoidosis. Patients with sarcoidosis may develop periodontitis as a manifestation of systemic disease and are therefore at increased risk of tooth loss. These patients are likely to want fixed dental prostheses, which may need to be supported by dental implants. The case presented is that of a 31-year-old female patient presenting with a missing maxillary central incisor and a sarcoidal process affecting the anterior maxilla, which had severely compromised the periodontium of the adjacent lateral incisor. The patient was successfully rehabilitated with an implant-retained prosthesis following a staged horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedure. At the 4-year review, the implant restoration performed well with stable peri-implant bone levels. We conclude that dental implant rehabilitation in patients with sarcoidosis may be a predictable treatment option, depending on disease stability and concurrent systemic therapy, but these patients will require additional maintenance because of the possibility of an increased risk of peri-implantitis. The effects of sarcoidosis and its management on the success of dental implants are discussed to aid treatment planning for such patients.

scholarly journals Zirconia implants as abutments for single crowns and fixed dental prostheses- 5 years results of a prospective cohort investigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Marc Balmer ◽  
Benedikt C. Spies ◽  
Ralf Kohal ◽  
Christoph Hämmerle ◽  
Kirstin Vach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses ◽  
Single Crowns ◽  
Zirconia Implants

scholarly journals Esthetic Rehabilitation of Anterior Dentition with Different Types of Ceramic Restorations: Two Case Reports

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Krump ◽  
Zelmira Krumpova
Keyword(s):  
Case Reports ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Ceramic Restorations ◽  
Single Crowns ◽  
The Ideal

AbstractAll-ceramic systems represent an excellent restorative alternative for fixed dental prostheses, single crowns, and veneers in the anterior dentition. With respect to improved mechanical properties, lithium disilicate ceramic material provide a broad range of indications, and extended veneers can serve as an alternative to full crowns. Although ceramic veneers represent a more conservative approach compared to crowns, the correct indication is essential to achieving the ideal outcome. The following case reports describe two types of fixed restorations of the anterior dentition: extended lithium disilicate ceramic veneers and lithium disilicate full crowns. Factors influencing treatment selection for each type of restorations are presented.

scholarly journals Selecting an appropriate occlusal scheme when fabricating implant- supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-194
Author(s):  
Mariam Margvelashvili-Malament ◽  
◽  
Kenneth A. Malament ◽  
Steven Eckert ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Group Function ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses

Background Dental implants are ankylosed in the bone without a periodontal ligament resulting in a lack of micro-mobility during chewing. Consequently, occlusion with dental implants may be at greater risk, specifically when the teeth come into contact in lateral excursive movements. Objective A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify occlusal concepts that were most favorable for implant-retained fixed restorations. Data Sources A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and EndNote literature online software databases. Keywords were used to assist in the identification of the literature. Study Selection The literature search identified 49 articles using PubMed and 33 articles using the author created EndNote database. Data Extraction Two occlusal concepts were identified, namely mutually protected occlusion and group function unilateral occlusion. None of the articles demonstrated clear scientific evidence to identify superiority of one concept over the other. Data Synthesis Based upon the systematic review of the literature, no scientific evidence was identified favoring any specific occlusal concept.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Root-Analogue Implants Restored with Single Crowns or Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Case Series

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Wernfried Heinrich Böse ◽  
Detlef Hildebrand ◽  
Florian Beuer ◽  
Christian Wesemann ◽  
Paul Schwerdtner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses ◽  
Single Crowns

The objective was to investigate clinical and radiological outcomes of rehabilitations with root-analogue implants (RAIs). Patients restored with RAIs, supporting single crowns or fixed dental prostheses, were recruited for follow-up examinations. Besides clinical and esthetical evaluations, X-rays were taken and compared with the records. Patients were asked to evaluate the treatment using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). For statistical analyses, mixed linear models were used. A total of 107 RAIs were installed in one dental office. Of these, 31 were available for follow-up examinations. For those remaining, survival has been verified via phone. RAIs were loaded after a mean healing time of 6.6 ± 2.5 months. 12.1 ± 6.9 months after loading, a mean marginal bone loss (MBL) of 1.20 ± 0.73 mm was measured. Progression of MBL significantly decreased after loading (p = 0.013). The mean pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) was 15.35 ± 2.33 at follow-up. A survival rate of 94.4% was calculated after a mean follow-up of 18.9 ± 2.4 months after surgery. Immediate installation of RAIs does not seem to reduce MBL, as known from the literature regarding screw-type implants, and might not be recommended for daily routine. Nevertheless, they deliver esthetically satisfying results.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Hussain Alhammadi ◽  
Girvan Burnside ◽  
Alexander Milosevic
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Health Authority ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Prostheses ◽  
Technical Complications ◽  
Fixed Dental Prostheses ◽  
One Year ◽  
Implant Loading ◽  
Single Implant

Abstract Background This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Methods This case series compared biological and technical complications in single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported bridges in a time framed sample of all patients who received dental implants between 2009 and 2016 in Dubai Health Authority. Only 3-unit implant-supported prostheses (FDPs) with one intervening pontic and an implant each end were included for comparison to single crown supported implants. Cantilevered implants, implant-supported dentures and cases involving bone grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. The primary outcome measure was marginal bone loss, measured on digital radiographs taken after prosthesis placement at baseline and one year after implant loading, whilst peri-implantitis and technical complications were secondary outcomes. Mixed regression models adjusted for clustering of implants within patients was used for patient and implant factor associations. Results A total of 454 patients (152 males; 302 females) had 1673 implants. The mean age of males (53.7 years, SD 14.6) was significantly greater than females (49.3 years, SD 12.9, p < 0.001). Mean mesial bone loss on the FDPs was significantly greater at 1 year (1.14 mm, SD 0.63) compared with the mesial surface of single implant-supported crowns (0.30 mm, SD 0.43, p < 0.001). Mean distal bone loss was also significantly greater at 1 year on the distal surfaces of implants supporting bridgework (1.29 mm, SD 0.71) compared with distal surfaces on single implant-supported crowns (0.36 mm, SD 0.54, p < 0.001). Mean marginal bone loss mesially and distally around implants placed in the lower anterior sextant was significantly greater compared to all other sites (p < 0.001). Bone loss by gender, patient’s age and medical condition was not different between the 2 implant groups. Screw loosening was the main technical complication (11.5%) whilst peri-implantitis occurred rarely (0.5%). The 66 cement retained implants had significantly more complications compared to the 1607 screw retained implants (p < 0.001). Conclusions Mean marginal bone loss around the supporting implants of FDPs (3-unit fixed bridgework) was greater than on single implant-supported crowns at one year after implant loading. Position in the mouth was associated with bone loss. Biological and technical complications occurred rarely.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document