Bone loss after 6 and 12 months proved statistically significant between two groups, with comparatively greater loss in the case of Osseous(®) implants vs. Inhex(®) implants. Regardless the heterogeneity of the two groups (neck shape, microthreads, surface texture), the implant-abutment connection appears to be a significant factor on peri-implant crestal bone levels. Anyway, in both groups, the values obtained were within normal ranges described in the literature.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature on the “all-on-four” treatment concept regarding its indications, surgical procedures, prosthetic protocols and technical and biological complications after at least three years in function.Study DesignThe three major electronic databases were screened: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL). In addition, electronic screening was made of the ‘grey literature’ using the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe - Open Grey, covering the period from January 2005 up to and including April 2016.ResultsA total of 728 articles were obtained from the initial screening process. Of these articles, 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality assessment showed sample size calculation to be reported by only one study, and follow-up did not include a large number of participants - a fact that may introduce bias and lead to misleading interpretations of the study results.ConclusionsThe all-on-four treatment concept offers a predictable way to treat the atrophic jaw in patients that do not prefer regenerative procedures, which increase morbidity and the treatment fees. The results obtained indicate a survival rate for more than 24 months of 99.8%. However, current evidence is limited due the scarcity of information referred to methodological quality, a lack of adequate follow-up, and sample attrition. Biological complications (e.g., peri-implantitis) are reported in few patients after a mean follow-up of two years. Adequate definition of the success / survival criteria is thus necessary, due the high prevalence of peri-implant diseases. Key words:All-on-four, all-on-4, tilted implants, dental prostheses, immediate loading.

No abstract

This review analyzes articles published on the presence of septa in maxillary sinuses. An automated search was conducted on PubMed using different key words. This search resulted in 11 papers in which the presence of antral septa was assessed. These septa are barriers of cortical bone that arise from the floor or from the walls of the sinus and may even divide the sinus into two or more cavities. They may originate during maxillary development and tooth growth, in which case they are known as primary septa; or they may be acquired structures resulting from the pneumatization of maxillary sinus after tooth loss, in which case they are called secondary septa. Several methods have been used in their study, direct observation on dried skulls or during sinus lift procedures; and radiographic observation using panoramic radiographs or computed tomographs. Between 13 and 35.3% of maxillary sinuses have septa. They can be located in any region of the maxillary sinus and their size can vary between 2.5 and 12.7 mm in mean length. Some authors have reported a higher prevalence of septa in atrophic edentulous areas than in non-atrophic ones. If a sinus lift is conducted in the presence of maxillary sinus septa, it may be necessary to modify the design of the lateral window in order to avoid fracturing the septa.