PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to gather, compare, and appraise studies that attempted to determine the biological and mechanical tolerance of misfits.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The review protocol was published in the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42021268399) and follows the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Ebscohost, and Web of Science followed by a manual search up to December 2021.
RESULTS: A total of 413 manuscripts were identified by electronic and manual search. After removing duplicates, nonrelevant titles, and abstract screening, 62 manuscripts were eligible for full-text assessment. Finally, a total of 13 articles (1 cross-sectional study, 1 retrospective and prospective, 7 in vitro studies, and 4 animal studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. A wide range of tolerable misfits were reported. Vertical misfit up to 1 mm and horizontal misfit up to 345 μm were associated with no adverse outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature provides inadequate data to determine a clinical threshold of an acceptable misfit. However, this review demonstrated that the mechanical response to misfit is more critical than the biological response.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present article was to review the current literature on the fracture loads and fracture modes of SRCR implant restorations - in vitro studies, and also studies demonstrating the clinical performance of such design.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted from January 2000 to June 2022, using 6 databases to identify studies on fracture load and clinical performance that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria (22 in vitro and16 in vivo). The in vivo studies comprised case reports/series/letters (9), clinical techniques (2), retrospective/prospective studies (3), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2).
RESULTS: The reviewed articles reported the effects of the SRCR design on the fracture risk if screw access channels were filled or unfilled, with regard to their diameter, and the preparation before or after glazing. The effect of the type of material used in the construction on the fracture modes SRCR restorations was also reported. The long-term clinical data was mainly retrospective and referred to metal-ceramic constructions. Limited long-term clinical data was available for all-ceramic materials and high-performance polymers (HPPs).
CONCLUSIONS: Screw-retrievable cement-retained implant restorations appear to have potential in the monolithic design. If the SRCR construction is metal-ceramic or made of a veneered material, special design and abutment selection should be considered. High-performance polymers may be recommended as a substitute for posterior implant restoration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search was carried out on two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from January 2011 to September 2022 were included. The bias risk was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Further screening was done for meta-analysis according to modified Newcastle-Ottawa scoring criteria. Forest plot was generated using a statistical method of inverse variance of random effect with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included for systematic review out of which four studies were based on tooth-supported fixed prosthesis and remaining four were based on implant-supported prosthesis. Further screening was conducted and three studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Tooth-supported fixed prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed no significant difference in the marginal fit in any region measured, except for occlusal region where conventional impression showed more favorable marginal fit. Implant-supported prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed survival rates ranging from 97.3 to 100% and there was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss (p = 0.14).
CONCLUSION: Implant-supported prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions show no significant differences in their clinical outcomes. Tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital impression have shown favorable findings in terms of marginal fit. Despite that, there is still lack of clinical trials with larger sample size and longer follow-up periods. Future studies that fulfill these two criteria are deemed necessary.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled clinical study was to evaluate crest bone-level changes and patient satisfaction with mandibular overdentures retained by 1 or 2 titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) implants with immediate loading protocols after 1 year.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-six Ti-Zr implants were placed in 24 participants (single central implant in 12 participants and 2 interforaminal implants in 11 participants) by a single operator. LOCATOR attachments were used to retain the mandibular overdentures with an immediate loading protocol, and observations were made at 1 month and 1 year. Changes to the crestal bone level were evaluated with digital periapical radiographs. A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate patient satisfaction. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: At 1 month, the mean crestal bone loss was 0.23 mm in the 2-implant group (n=22) and 0.39 mm (P=.181) in the single-implant group (n=11). At 1 year, the bone loss was 0.67 mm in the 2-implant group and 0.88 mm (P=.248) in the single-implant group. The mean VAS score for patient satisfaction level increased from 38.3% to 49.7% for single-implant participants and from 40.5% to 54.8% for 2-implant participants 1 month after implant placement (P=.250) and from 38.3% to 54.5% for single-implant participants and from 40.5% to 58.9% for 2-implant participants after 1 year (P=.341).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with an immediate loading protocol may represent a viable treatment option considering crestal bone-level changes and patient satisfaction compared with 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures after 1 year of follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional solid models of the maxilla, mucosa, and denture of a selected edentulous patient were created using Mimics and CATIA software. The FEA model was created and duplicated in ANSYS 16.0 to perform two simulations for the IOD and the CD models. The values of maximum stress and strain and total deformation were obtained and compared to the outcomes of premaxilla resorption from a parallel clinical study.
RESULTS: The maximum principal stress in the premaxilla in the IOD model ranged from 0.019 to 0.336 MPa, while it ranged from 0.011 to 0.193 MPa in the CD model. The maximum principal strain in the IOD model was 1.75 times greater than that in the CD model. Total deformation was 1.8 times higher in the IOD model. Greater bone resorption was observed in regions of higher stress, which were on the occlusal and buccal sides of the premaxilla residual ridge.
CONCLUSION: Stress, strain, and total deformation values present in the premaxilla area beneath a CD were approximately two times greater in a comparison between an opposing mandibular two-IOD and an opposing mandibular CD. The results were consistent with a parallel clinical study in which the rate of premaxilla bone resorption was almost three times greater in the IOD group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18 patients were rehabilitated with maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, and 4 patients were prescribed with conventional CD. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the maxilla were acquired before and 1 year post-treatment and converted into 3D models using Mimics research software. RRR was quantified by measuring the changes in bone volume following superimpositioning and sectioning of these models at the anterior maxillary region. Subsequently, the sectioned 3D models of the anterior maxilla were exported to 3-Matic software to reveal the predominant region and depth of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean reduction in bone volume of the anterior maxilla in the CD group was 2.60% (SD = 1.71%, range = -4.89 % to -0.92%, median = -2.30%), while the mean reduction in the IRO group was almost three times higher at 7.25% (SD = 3.16%, range = -13.25 to -1.50, median = -7.15%). The predominant areas of RRR were on the buccal and occlusal ridge of the anterior maxilla.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that an IRO caused significantly higher RRR of the anterior maxilla than a CD.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior (stress distribution pattern) in the mandibular overdenture, mucosa, bone, and implants when retained with 2 standard implants or 2 mini implants under unilateral or bilateral loading conditions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A patient with edentulous mandible and his denture was scanned with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and a 3D mandibular model was created in the Mimics software program by using the CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) images. The model was transferred to the 3Matics software program to form a 2-mm-thick mucosal layer and to assemble the denture DICOM file. A 12-mm-long standard implant (Ø3.5 mm) and a mini dental implant (Ø2.5 mm) along with the LOCATOR male attachments (height 4 mm) were designed by using the SOLIDWORKS software program. Two standard or 2 mini implants in the canine region were embedded separately in the 3D assembled model. The base of the mandible was fixed, and vertical compressive loads of 100 N were applied unilaterally and bilaterally in the first molar region. The material properties for acrylic resin (denture), titanium (implants), mucosa (tissue), and bone (mandible) were allocated. Maximum von Mises stress and strain values were obtained and analyzed.
RESULTS: Maximum stresses of 9.78 MPa (bilaterally) and 11.98 MPa (unilaterally) were observed in 2 mini implants as compared with 3.12 MPa (bilaterally) and 3.81 MPa (unilaterally) in 2 standard implants. The stress values in the mandible were observed to be almost double the mini implants as compared with the standard implants. The stresses in the denture were in the range of 3.21 MPa and 3.83 MPa and in the mucosa of 0.68 MPa and 0.7 MPa for 2 implants under unilateral and bilateral loading conditions. The strain values shown similar trends with both implant types under bilateral and unilateral loading.
CONCLUSIONS: Two mini implants generated an average of 68.15% more stress than standard implants. The 2 standard implant-retained overdenture showed less stress concentration in and around implants than mini implant-retained overdentures.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the changes in masticatory function from baseline (T0) to 3 months (T1) and 3 years (T2) in participants with MODs and to assess the effect of baseline mandibular bone height and volume on masticatory function after 3 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants were assessed for masticatory function by using masticatory performance involving paraffin wax cubes as an objective measure and by using masticatory ability involving a questionnaire as a subjective measure. Edentulous individuals presenting for replacement dentures were provided with conventional mucosa-supported prostheses and evaluated for masticatory function after a 3-month settling-in period (baseline measure). Before implant placement, baseline measures of bone height and volume were recorded from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. The prostheses were then converted to implant-stabilized mandibular overdentures while any maxillary prostheses remained supported by the mucosa. Masticatory function was reassessed at 3 months and 3 years after insertion of the mandibular overdentures, and the mean changes from baseline were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The effect of variables on masticatory function was determined by using multivariate linear regression analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 23 participants were included in the study, with only 1 participant not completing the 3-year assessment. Significant improvement was observed in the masticatory performance (mixing ability index) (Pimplant-stabilized mandibular overdenture.
CONCLUSIONS: Masticatory function significantly improved after 3 months and was maintained over 3 years in participants with implant-stabilized mandibular overdentures. However, baseline bone height and volume had no significant effect on these changes in masticatory function after 3 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The test group included 9 participants rehabilitated by maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, while the control group consisted of 4 participants with CDs. Blood flow was measured by laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) after denture removal for 0, 30, 60, and 90 minutes. RRR was quantified as reduction in bone volume a year post-treatment. The measurement of blood flow was then compared to the quantification of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean blood flow measure for the IRO group was significantly lower than CD after immediate denture removal and 30 minutes later. After 60 minutes, the mean difference was not significant between groups, and at 90 minutes, the mean blood flow of both groups equalized to reach a steady state of 377 BPU. The mandibular IRO had reduced the initial blood flow measure in the opposing anterior maxilla mucosa to almost a quarter (103 BPU) of the steady state value (377 BPU) compared to the CD, which reduced it to only about one half (183 BPU), suggesting greater blood flow disturbance in the IRO group. This result is in tandem with the greater reduction of bone volume observed in the IRO group, which was 7.3 ± 1.3% after a year, almost three times higher than CD group at 2.6 ± 1.7%.
CONCLUSION: IRO may cause significantly higher blood flow disturbance than CD and may have contributed to greater RRR in the anterior maxilla.