Books

Purpose: Zygomatic implants are considered one of the last options for the rehabilitation of severe maxillary atrophy when standard implants cannot be placed. They offer several advantages but can also present complications. This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of zygomatic implant placement. Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted, and the inclusion criteria consisted of patients previously treated with zygomatic implants who had Class V or VI maxillary bone atrophy according to Cawood and Howell, and with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years after prosthetic loading. Outcome measures included implant and prosthesis survival rate, biological and biomechanical complications, and Lund-Mackay staging score before and after implant placement. Results: The study included 78 patients who received a total of 274 zygomatic implants. The mean follow-up period was 90.4 ± 26.0 months. Seventeen implant failures occurred, resulting in a survival rate of 93.8%, with a statistically significant negative correlation with smoking habits (P = 0.049), anchorage to the two zygomatic bone cortices (bicorticality) (P 0.001) and soft tissue complications (P 0.001). The prosthetic success rate was 92.3%. A statistically significant increase in maxillary sinus radiopacity was recorded when comparing the situation before and after surgery (P 0.001), and the intrasinus pathway had a statistically significant influence on that increase (P = 0.003). Conclusions: Zygomatic implants utilised for rehabilitating patients with severe maxillary atrophy have shown favourable outcomes. Nonetheless, owing to potential complications, strict case selection is necessary, combined with regular recall visits and proper oral hygiene maintenance. Furthermore, this type of surgery necessitates specialised training and expertise on the part of the practitioner. Keywords: bone atrophy, complications, long-term results, zygomatic implants The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness of three different devices used in guided bone regeneration procedures for partially atrophic arches. Materials and methods: A randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms was conducted. The study evaluated titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFE group), semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh (mesh group) and occlusive CAD/CAM titanium foil (foil group) in terms of surgical outcomes and complications as well as surgical times and surgeon satisfaction in 27 guided bone regeneration procedures, presenting results from 1 year post–implant placement. Results: Complications occurred in seven patients. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the occurrence of complications (P = 0.51), device exposure (P = 0.12) and implant failure (P = 0.650). Surgeon satisfaction varied significantly, with the PTFE group differing from the mesh (P = 0.003) and foil groups (P = 0.001), but not between meshes and foils (P = 0.172). Surgical times also differed significantly, with longer times for PTFE membranes compared to meshes (P = 0.001) and foils (P = 0.006), but with no difference between meshes and foils (P = 0.308). The mean reconstructed bone volume was 1269.55 ± 561.08 mm3, with no significant difference observed between the three groups (P = 0.815). There was also no significant difference for mean maximum height (6.72 mm, P = 0.867) and width (7.69 mm, P = 0.998). The mean marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant placement was 0.59 ± 0.27 mm. Conclusions: Although this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of using different types of CAD/CAM devices, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is warranted to validate these findings. Keywords: CAD/CAM, dental implants, foil, guided bone regeneration, mesh The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

Purpose: To establish consensus-driven guidelines that could support the clinical decision-making process for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla and ultimately improve long-term treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods: A total of 33 participants were enrolled (18 active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration and 15 international experts). Based on the available evidence, the development group discussed and proposed an initial list of 20 statements, which were later evalu-ated by all participants. After the forms were completed, the responses were sent for blinded ana-lysis. In most cases, when a consensus was not reached, the statements were rephrased and sent to the participants for another round of evaluation. Three rounds were planned. Results: After the first round of voting, participants came close to reaching a consensus on six statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other fourteen. Following this, nineteen statements were rephrased and sent to participants again for the second round of voting, after which a consensus was reached for six statements and almost reached for three statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other ten. All 13 statements upon which no consensus was reached were rephrased and included in the third round. After this round, a consensus was achieved for an additional nine statements and almost achieved for three statements, but no consensus was reached for the remaining statement. Conclusion: This Delphi consensus highlights the importance of accurate preoperative planning, taking into consideration the maxillomandibular relationship to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of the final restoration. Emphasis is placed on the role played by the sinus bony walls and floor in providing essential elements for bone formation, and on evaluation of bucco-palatal sinus width for choosing between lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. Tilted and trans-sinus implants are considered viable options, whereas caution is advised when placing pterygoid implants. Zygomatic implants are seen as a potential option in specific cases, such as for completely edentulous elderly or oncological patients, for whom conventional alternatives are unsuitable. Keywords: diagnostic procedure, implant dentistry, lateral window technique, pterygoid implants, sinus floor elevation, transcrestal sinus floor elevation, zygomatic implants The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

The management of horizontally fully edentulous atrophic ridges is a common problem in dental implantology. This case report describes an alternative modified two-stage presplitting technique. The patient was referred for an implant-supported rehabilitation of their edentulous mandible. CBCT scans showed a mean available bone width of about 3 mm. At the first stage, four linear corticotomies were performed using a piezoelectric surgical device. At the second surgical stage 4 weeks later, bone expansion was performed, and four implants were placed in the interforaminal area. The healing process was uneventful. No fractures of the buccal wall and no neurologic lesions were observed. Postoperative CBCT scans showed a mean bone width gain of about 3.7 mm. Implants were uncovered 6 months after the second surgery, and 1 month later, a fixed provisional screw-retained prosthesis was delivered. This approach could be used as a reconstructive technique that avoids using grafts and reduces treatment times, possible complications, postsurgical morbidity, and costs by exploiting the patient’s native bone as much as possible. Considering the limitations of a case report, randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and validate this technique. 

Purpose: Guided bone regeneration is a widely used technique for the treatment of atrophic arches. A broad range of devices have been employed to achieve bone regeneration. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical and histological findings for a new titanium CAD/CAM device for guided bone regeneration, namely semi-occlusive titanium mesh. Materials and methods: Nine partially edentulous patients with vertical and/or horizontal bone defects underwent a guided bone regeneration procedure to enable implant placement. The device used as a barrier was a semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh with a laser sintered microperforated scaffold with a pore size of 0.3 mm, grafted with autogenous and xenogeneic bone in a ratio of 80:20. Eight months after guided bone regeneration, surgical and healing complications were evaluated and histological analyses of the regenerated bone were performed. Results: A total of 9 patients with 11 treated sites were enrolled. Two healing complications were recorded: one late exposure of the device and one early infection (18.18%). At 8 months, well-structured new regenerated trabecular bone with marrow spaces was mostly present. The percentage of newly formed bone was 30.37% ± 4.64%, that of marrow spaces was 56.43% ± 4.62%, that of residual xenogeneic material was 12.16% ± 0.49% and that of residual autogenous bone chips was 1.02% ± 0.14%. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, the results show that semi-occlusive titanium mesh could be used for vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation. Nevertheless, further follow-ups and clinical and histological studies are required. Keywords: CAD/CAM, guided bone regeneration, histology, preliminary results, titanium mesh The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

Purpose: To assess whether the presence or absence of keratinized tissue height (KTh) may have an influence on marginal bone levels, complications, and implant survival for short implants. Materials and Methods: The study was designed as parallel cohort retrospective research. Short implants with an implant length < 7 mm were considered. One cohort was composed of patients with short implants surrounded by ≥ 2 mm of KTh (adequate KTh); the other cohort included implants with < 2 mm of KTh (not-adequate KTh). Outcome measures were marginal bone level (MBL) changes, failures, and complications. Results: One hundred ten patients treated with 217 short and extrashort implants (4 to 6.6 mm long) were retrospectively included. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years after prosthetic loading (range: 1 to 8 years). The differences between KTh groups in MBL were not statistically significant at every follow-up considered: 0.05 mm at 1 year (P = .48), 0.06 mm at 3 years (P = .34), 0.04 mm at 5 years (P = .64), and 0.03 at 8 years (P = .82). A total of nine complications were reported: three in the not-adequate KTh group and six in the adequate group; the difference was not statistically significant (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 0.68 to 13.46, P = .14). Five implants failed due to peri-implantitis, two in the not-adequate KTh group and three in the adequate group, without a statistically significant difference (OR: 2.76, 95% CI: 0.42–17.99, P = .29). Conclusion: This study showed no statistically significant differences in MBL, complications, and implant failure rates between short implants with adequate or not-adequate KThs. However, given the importance of patient comfort while brushing and plaque accumulation, keratinized tissue grafts could be important in selected patients, especially for those who are severely atrophic, also taking into consideration all the limitations of this study and the mediumterm follow-up. Nevertheless, longer follow-ups, larger numbers of patients, and randomized controlled clinical trials are needed before making more reliable clinical recommendations. Keywords: keratinized tissue height, marginal bone loss, short implants

Purpose: To explore whether extra-short (4-mm) implants could be used to rehabilitate sites where regenerative procedures had failed in order to avoid additional bone grafting. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted among patients who had received extra-short implants after failed regenerative procedures in the posterior atrophic mandible. The research outcomes were complications, implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss. Results: The study population was composed of 35 patients with 103 extra-short implants placed after the failure of different reconstructive approaches. The mean follow-up duration was 41.3 ± 21.4 months post-loading. Two implants failed, leading to a failure rate of 1.94% (95% confidence interval 0.24%–6.84%) and an implant survival rate of 98.06%. The mean amount of marginal bone loss at 5 years post-loading was 0.32 ± 0.32 mm. It was significantly lower in extra-short implants placed in regenerative sites that had previously received a loaded long implant (P = 0.004). Failure of guided bone regeneration before placement of short implants tended to lead to the highest annual rate of marginal bone loss (P = 0.089). The overall rate of biological and prosthetic complications was 6.79% (95% confidence interval 1.94%–11.70%) and 3.88% (95% confidence interval 1.07%–9.65%), respectively. The success rate was 86.4% (95% confidence interval 65.10%–97.10%) after 5 years of loading. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, extra-short implants seem to be a good clinical option to manage reconstructive surgical failures, reducing surgical invasiveness and rehabilitation time. Keywords: bone regeneration, dental implants, reconstructive surgical procedure, treatment failure This study did not receive any external funding. Prof Felice receives research grants from Global D (Brignais, France). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

The aim of the present study was to generate an international and multidisciplinary consensus on the clinical management of implant protrusion into the maxillary sinuses and nasal fossae. A total of 31 experts participated, 23 of whom were experts in implantology (periodontologists, maxillofacial surgeons and implantologists), 6 were otolaryngologists and 2 were radiologists. All the participants were informed of the current scientific knowledge on the topic based on a systematic search of the literature. A list of statements was created and divided into three surveys: one for all participants, one for implant providers and radiologists and one for otolaryngologists and radiologists. A consensus was reached on 15 out of 17 statements. According to the participants, osseointegrated implants protruding radiographically into the maxillary sinus or nasal fossae require as much monitoring and maintenance as implants fully covered by bone. In the event of symptoms of sinusitis, collaboration between implant providers and otolaryngologists is required. Implant removal should be considered only after pharmacological and surgical management of sinusitis have failed. Keywords: consensus, dental implants, maxillary sinus, nasal fossae Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

This retrospective study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes of simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant placement procedures in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous and horizontally atrophic dental arches using resorbable membranes. A total of 49 patients were included, and 97 implants were placed. Patients were followed up for 3 to 7 years after loading. The data indicate that GBR with simultaneous implant placement and resorbable membranes can be a good clinical choice, and the data suggest that it could be better to horizontally reconstruct no more than 3 mm of bone in order to reduce the number of complications and to obtain stable results. However, this technique remains difficult and requires expert surgeons.

In everyday practice, surgeons have to deal with bone atrophy. These rehabilitations are even more complex in the posterior mandible, and it is still unclear in the literature which fixed rehabilitation option is best. The purpose of this article was to help oral surgeons to choose the proper and updated treatment for their atrophic patients. Posterior mandible bone atrophies were divided into four main groups depending on the bone height measured above the inferior alveolar nerve: (1) ≤ 4 mm; (2) > 4 mm ≤ 5 mm; (3) > 5 mm ≤ 6 mm; (4) > 6 mm < 7 mm. Different approaches were proposed for each group, considering patient expectations. If ≤ 4 mm of bone height was available, guided bone regeneration was used as the adequate approach. For bone heights > 4 mm and ≤ 6 mm, the “sandwich” technique and/or short implants were used, depending on esthetics. In cases with > 6 mm and < 7 mm above the mandibular canal, short implants might be the proper option. The authors’ clinical experience and the literature were considered in order to suggest a possible correct treatment decision based on the residual bone height in the posterior mandible.