Purpose: To analyze risk factors affecting sinus membrane perforation (SMP) during sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedures using the lateral window technique (LWT). Materials and Methods: For patients with SFEs using the LWT, patient-related risk factors (age/sex/smoking/diabetes) and surgical-anatomical–related risk factors (stage approach/sinus side/residual ridge height/sinus membrane thickness/previous surgical interventions) were compared between perforated and nonperforated sites and were evaluated for their influence affecting SMP. Additionally, SMPs were further subdivided into small/moderate (< 10 mm) or large (≥ 10 mm) in dimension, which were also analyzed for risk factors and consecutively for their influence on perforation. Results: The study sample comprised 434 SFE procedures in 355 patients; 94/355 patients (26.5%) presented SMP in 103 of 434 SFE procedures (23.8%). SFE procedures with (n = 103) and without (n = 331) SMP did not differ for patient-related risk factors but differed significantly (P = .001) for surgical-anatomical factors as follows: residual ridge height (3.05 ± 1.35 mm vs 4.15 ± 1.46 mm), sinus membrane thickness (1.2 ± 0.5 mm vs 2.6 ± 1.1 mm), prevalence of staged procedures (78.6% vs 57.7%), presence of maxillary sinus septa (75.7% vs 14.2%), presence of thin (< 1.5 mm) mucosa biotype (62.1% vs 29%), and previous oral surgical interventions (37.9% vs 16.3%). In the multivariate analysis, significant associations of SMP were found with the presence of sinus septa (odds ratio [OR] = 31.992; P = .001), residual ridge height (OR = 1.563; P = .007), sinus membrane thickness (OR = 1.057; P = .001), presence of thin (< 1.5 mm) sinus biotype (OR = 8.883; P = .001), previous surgical interventions (OR = 4.689; P = .002), and smoking habits (OR = 2.238; P = .030). For inducing a large (≥ 10 mm) SMP, the presence of thin sinus membrane thickness/thin sinus membrane biotype (OR = 5.319; P = .006; OR = 22.222; P = .001) and reduced alveolar ridge height (OR = 0.629; P = .026) were assessed as being significant risk factors. Conclusion: In general, the presence of sinus septa, thin sinus mucosa, staged procedures, and previous surgical interventions are the main risk factors inducing SMP for SFE using the LWT. In particular, the presence of thin sinus membrane in conjunction with a staged procedure significantly increases the risk for a large SMP. Schlagwörter: lateral window, membrane perforation, perforation size, risk factors, sinus elevation

Purpose: To evaluate the 5-year clinical outcomes for implants placed in a staged sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedure and to compare three patient groups with sinus grafts with three different ratios of bovine bone mineral (BBM) and autogenous bone (AB) mixture. Materials and Methods: A 5-year prospective cohort study was conducted on 81 patients with 119 staged SFEs non-randomly distributed to three groups based on the origin of the AB and the mixture ratio with BBM: group 1 (locally harvested AB [LHB] from osteotomy sites + BBM, ratio: 1:10), 31 patients, 37 SFEs; group 2: (LHB + intraorally harvested peripheral AB [IHPB] from retromolar/chin region + BBM, ratio: 1:4), 22 patients, 29 SFEs; and group 3 (LHB + extraorally harvested peripheral AB [EHPB] from iliac crest/tibia + BBM, ratio 1:1), 28 patients, 53 SFEs. After graft healing (5 to 7 months), 284 dental implants (group 1: 76, group 2: 61, group 3: 147 [overall: 2.3 implants/sinus]) were placed. After an additional healing period (5 to 7 months), all implants placed were functionally loaded and prospectively followed by clinical and radiographic evaluations assessing implant survival/success rate as well as peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) alteration at 1, 3, and 5 years postloading. Results: A total of 76/81 patients with 267/284 implants were followed for up to 5 years (dropouts: 5 patients/ 15 implants; implant loss = 2). The 5-year implant survival and implant success rate (group 1: 100%/98.6%; group 2: 98.3%/96.6%; group 3: 99.3%/95.7%) did not differ between the three graft mixture groups. The peri-implant marginal bone alteration (reduction) averaged over all 5 years was 1.40 ± 0.29 mm for group 1, 1.41 ± 0.22 mm for group 2, and 1.46 ± 0.46 mm for group 3 (P = .187). However, over time, a continual and significant MBL reduction (P = .045) was noted for all groups presenting peri-implant MBL changes between 1 year and 5 years of -0.17 mm (group 1), -0.12 mm (group 2), and -0.24 mm (group 3), respectively. Conclusion: According to the clinical results obtained, dental implants inserted in grafted (staged) SFE using a mixture of BBM with a minimal amount of AB harvested from local sites provide for similarly high 5-year implant/augmentation success rates as graft mixtures with AB harvested from peripheral intraoral or extraoral donor sites, confirming no need for additional bone harvesting. Schlagwörter: 3 different bone ratios, implant survival/success, staged maxillary sinus augmentation

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of immediately loaded distally cantilevered mandibular full-arch prostheses according to the 'all-on-four' concept supported by implants placed in both fresh extraction and healed sites. Material and methods: A prospective study was conducted in 24 patients with extraction of all remaining mandibular teeth and placement of 4 implants per patient (2 mesial axial and 2 distal tilted) for full-arch mandibular restorations. Implants were inserted in fresh extraction sockets 2.3 ± 1.0 per patient and 1.7 ± 1.0 implants in healed sites. Implants placed in fresh extraction sites (n = 55) were significantly (P Schlagwörter: edentulous mandible, extraction sites, fixed full arch prostheses, immediate implant placement, immediate loading Conflict of interest statement: Prof Gerald Krennmair was supported by a grant from Camlog Foundation to conduct this research.

Purpose: This retrospective study evaluated implant and prosthodontic survival/success rates of four-implant- supported distal cantilevered mandibular fixed prostheses over more than 5 years of clinical use. Materials and Methods: Patients with mandibular edentulism treated with four-implant mandibular prostheses with distal extensions were evaluated. Cumulative implant survival/success rates, peri-implant conditions, and prosthodontic maintenance efforts were assessed. Relationships between the degree of distal implant tilting, length of cantilevers, and implant-generated supporting zone were evaluated. Results: Thirty-eight patients with 152 implants (90.5% of the original sample) were available for follow-up after 5 to 7 years (mean follow-up, 66.5 ± 3.1 months). The cumulative survival and success rates for included implants were 100% and 98.6%, respectively. Denture cantilever length (mean, 14.7 ± 2.3 mm; range, 9 to 20 mm) and implant-generated supporting zone (mean, 318.9 ± 48.1 mm2; range, 225 to 410 mm2) showed significant positive and negative correlations, respectively, with the inclination of tilted distal implants toward the occlusal plane (76 ± 7.2 degrees; range, 65 to 90 degrees). Peri-implant marginal bone resorption (1.5 ± 0.4 mm) and pocket depths (1.8 ± 0.8 mm) were similar for anterior and posterior implants and were not influenced by degree of tilting or cantilever length. Plaque and calculus conditions were poorer for anterior implants than for posterior implants. No dentures fractured; however, fractures of resin tooth veneer material, denture rebasing, and a strong need for cleaning as a result of resin discoloration were seen. Conclusion: Fixed four-implant rehabilitations with distal cantilevers of a defined length with or without distally tilted implants showed high success rates. Inferior hygiene in the anterior mandible regions may be a result of reduced cleansability and variations in anatomical landmarks. Resin veneering proved advantageous for repair or modification but disadvantageous for discoloration.

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival/success rates and peri-implant parameters as well as patient satisfaction for uniformly designed implant-supported anterior maxillary or mandibular fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with maxillary or mandibular anterior partial edentulism (all incisors missing) treated between 2002 and 2006 with a two-implant-supported four-unit FPD. All FPDs were of the same design: two implant abutments in the lateral incisor positions and two ovate pontics in the central incisor positions. Cumulative implant survival rates and peri-implant conditions (marginal bone loss, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Index, Periotest values) as well as the incidence and type of prosthodontic maintenance were evaluated. The patients' subjective satisfaction rate was surveyed using multiple questionnaires with a 10-point scoring system (0 = not satisfied to 10 = highly satisfied). Results: Thirty-six of 38 patients (dropout: 5%) with 72 implants (50 maxillary and 22 mandibular implants, 25 maxillary and 11 mandibular FPDs) were available for follow-up after a mean observation period of 56.2 ± 10.3 months. High cumulative implant survival and success rates (100%) and healthy peri-implant parameters (mean marginal bone resorption: 1.8 ± 0.3 mm; mean pocket depth: 2.5 ± 1.0 mm; Periotest value: -4.5 ± 1.1; and Plaque/Bleeding/Gingival indices of 0 in 70% of sites [with significantly better results in the maxilla than in the mandible]) were achieved. The most frequent required prosthodontic maintenance efforts were maxillary recementation (3/25; 12%) and mandibular rebasing (2/11; 18.2%). A high score for satisfaction was obtained, although slightly better overall results were seen for maxillary than for mandibular FPDs. Conclusion: For all parameters evaluated, these FPDs proved to be a viable treatment procedure for anterior partial edentulism with good clinical and esthetic outcomes. Schlagwörter: anterior region, clinical outcome, dental implants, fixed partial dentures, patient satisfaction

Purpose: Implant success, peri-implant conditions, and prosthodontic maintenance requirements were evaluated and compared for mandibular overdentures supported by two implants and retained with ball or resilient telescopic crown attachments during a 5-year period. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients with an edentulous mandible each received two root-form dental implants in the mandibular interforaminal (canine) region. The type of denture attachment was chosen randomly; 13 patients received ball attachments and 12 patients received resilient telescopic crowns. Implant success and peri-implant conditions (bone resorption, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Index) as well as prosthodontic maintenance and patient satisfaction were evaluated annually during a 5-year follow-up period and compared with respect to the two retention modalities used. Results: Implant success, peri-implant conditions, and subjective patient satisfaction scores did not differ between the two retention modalities used. However, during the 5-year observation period, significantly more postinsertion complications/interventions for maintenance purposes were registered in the ball group (87 interventions, 61.1%) than in the telescopic crown group (53 interventions, 37.9%; P < .01). Differences in prosthodontic maintenance efforts were most significant in the second and third years (P < .05) of the follow-up period but were similar at the end of the study for both anchorage systems. Conclusion: Both ball attachments and resilient telescopic crowns on isolated implants in the atrophic mandible are viable treatment options for implant-supported overdentures. No implant losses, good peri-implant conditions, and general patient satisfaction were noted. Although the frequency of technical complications was initially higher with ball attachments than with resilient telescopic crowns over a 5-year period, similar frequencies of maintenance efforts may be anticipated for both retention modalities. Schlagwörter: ball anchors, implant-retained prostheses, mandibular overdentures, prosthodontic maintenance, telescopic crowns

Purpose: The present study evaluated implant and peri-implant outcomes as well as prosthodontic maintenance efforts for implant/bar-supported mandibular prostheses with different prosthesis anchorage systems. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six patients who received two or four interforaminal implants were assigned to one of three different bar designs and subsequently to different prosthesis supporting systems. Forty-nine patients received implants and a mucosa-supported implant-retained overdenture (OD) with an ovoid bar (two implants; design 1) or multiple ovoid bars (four implants; design 2). Twenty-seven patients received four implants and a rigid implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) with a milled bar (design 3). Implant survival, peri-implant parameters (marginal bone resorption, pocket depth, and plaque, bleeding, gingival, and calculus indices), and postinsertion prosthodontic maintenance were followed over a 5-year period and compared among the different retention modalities. At the most recent follow-up examination, subjective patient satisfaction was additionally evaluated using a simplified scoring system (ranging from 1 = not satisfactory to 5 = excellent). Results: Implant survival rates (100%) and all peri-implant parameters evaluated showed no differences among the three designs used for implant prosthesis anchorage. Prosthodontic maintenance did not differ between the different ODs (OD design 1: average of 1.04 maintenance visits/year/patient; OD design 2: 1.2 maintenance visits/year/patient), but it was significantly lower for the dentures that were rigidly stabilized with milled bars (ISP: 0.37 maintenance visits/year/patient). A high subjective satisfaction rate (range: 4.5 to 5.0) was registered at the final examination, without any differences among the designs used. Conclusions: Rigid anchorage with milled bars on four-implant prostheses combined with a metal-reinforced framework showed a lower extent of prosthodontic maintenance issues than round bars on two- or four-implant overdentures with resilient denture stabilization. Nevertheless, implants and peri-implant structures were not negatively affected by either resilient or rigid anchorage mechanisms. Schlagwörter: edentulous mandible, implant-supported overdentures, milled bar, prosthodontic maintenance, round bar

Purpose: This retrospective study assessed implant and prosthodontic treatment outcomes of patients suffering from rheumatic disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and connective tissue diseases (CTDs). Materials and Methods: This study included 22 patients (all women) suffering from autoimmune rheumatic disorders such as isolated RA (n = 16), RA with concomitant CTDs (n = 5), or isolated CTDs (n = 1). Overall, 89 implants were placed for rehabilitations such as single-tooth replacement (n = 8), fixed partial dentures (n = 14), complete dentures (n = 5), and overdentures (n = 2), and were evaluated after a mean of 42.6 ± 25.2 months. The cumulative implant survival and success rates and peri-implant conditions (marginal bone loss, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Index, and Calculus Index) were evaluated with a special focus on RA and CTDs. In addition, incidence and type of prosthodontic maintenance were evaluated. Results: A high implant survival rate was noted during follow-up with a cumulative 3-year implant success rate of 96.1%. Patients with RA demonstrated acceptable marginal bone resorption (mean: 2.1 ± 0.5 mm) and good soft tissue conditions, while CTD patients showed increased bone resorption (mean: 3.1 ± 0.7 mm). This was especially noted in scleroderma patients, as were major peri-implant soft tissue alterations (Bleeding Index) in patients suffering from Sjögren syndrome. Conclusions: A high implant and prothodontic success rate can be anticipated even for patients suffering from autoimmune rheumatic disorders such as RA and CTDs. A scrupulous maintenance program that includes optimal oral hygiene could assist in ensuring stable long-term results for CTD patients with more vulnerable soft tissue conditions.

Purpose: Immediate loading is among the most innovative techniques in implant therapy today. This pilot study investigates the biomechanical outcome of various designs and surfaces that claim to shorten implant treatment. Materials and Methods: In each quadrant of two mongrel dogs, four different implants were used for immediate loading. The following implants were placed 3 months after tooth extraction: screw with low thread profile and anodic oxidized surface (LPAOS), solid screw with wide thread profile and titanium plasma spray coating (WPTPS), screw with low profile and hybrid design of double-etched and machined surface (LPHES), and screw with two thread profiles and a sandblasted and acid-etched surface (DTSAE). The insertion torque of each implant was above 35 Ncm. Resonance frequency analysis was performed after implant placement and again after sacrifice. Additionally, the removal torque and the amount of embedded titanium particles in the peri-implant bone were measured. Results: All 16 prostheses were functional after a 5-month loading period. The highest mean removal torque values were recorded with WPTPS implants (24.4 Ncm/mm), followed by DTSAE implants (22.3 Ncm/mm) and LPAOS implants (18.7 Ncm/mm); the lowest score was obtained by LPHES (12.0 Ncm/mm). The ISQ values increased between the time of surgery and recall for all systems on average, but a significant positive correlation was found for DTSAE only. Significantly higher amounts of titanium were found in the surrounding bone with WPTPS (0.76%) and LPAOS (0.41%) in comparison with DTSAE (0.10%) and LPHES (0.03%). Conclusion: Immediate loading is possible with various designs and surfaces if high primary stability can be achieved during implant placement. Schlagwörter: immediate loading, implant design, implant surface, removal torque, titanium wear

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of provisional implants, which can provide patients with provisional fixed partial dentures during the healing time of augmentation procedures and/or during the osseointegration period of definitive implants until delivery of the definitive prosthesis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one patients were consecutively included in the study. Eighteen patients (group A, primary simultaneous group) were initially treated simultaneously with provisional and definitive implants and provided with 18 interim fixed partial dentures. Thirteen patients (group B) received provisional implants in a staggered procedure. In the first stage of group B patients (augmentation phase), provisional implants were placed to bridge the augmentation phase and for anchoring 13 interim fixed partial dentures. In the second stage (secondary simultaneous group), patients of group B received provisional implants to bridge the osseointegration phase for simultaneously placed definitive implants by further use of 13 interim fixed partial dentures. All patients were followed from provisional implant and definitive implant placement to delivery of the definitive prosthesis. Loss of provisional implants and interim fixed partial dentures was noted, and stability of provisional implants was evaluated using the Periotest device. The procedures of immediate rehabilitation with fixed partial dentures using provisional implants were subjectively rated by patients with regard to satisfaction, treatment period, and acceptance. Results: In 31 patients, 44 provisional fixed partial dentures were supported by 98 provisional implants. No provisional implant loss in group A or group B-second stage was observed. Only 3 (3%) provisional implants were lost in group B-first stage during the augmentation phase. Incidence (90.8% versus 9.2%) and stability (Periotest values: 8.6 ± 3.9 versus 4.8 ± 2.7) of provisional implants differed significantly between maxilla and mandible (P < .01). All interim fixed partial dentures (n = 44) remained in place for the intended time period but in 3 cases with provisional implant loss they were shortened. No definitive implant loss (n = 94, survival: 100%) and especially no implant loss in cases of maxillary sinus augmentation was seen. The items rated showed high satisfaction and good acceptance of the intensive surgical and prosthodontic program. Conclusion: This clinical review showed that (1) provisional implants can successfully provide patients with a fixed partial denture for immediate rehabilitation to bridge the osseointegration or augmentation phase, even in cases with an initially compromised bone situation and (2) although treatment is elaborate, the selected patients decided on a fixed interim rehabilitation with provisional implants rather than on a removable solution. Schlagwörter: immediate rehabilitation, partially edentulous jaw, provisional implants