Introduction: In view of the increase in the life expectancy of humans and in edentulism of the population above 50 years of age, in which the prevalence of osteoporosis is also higher, it is fundamental to better understand the effects of systemic bone mass loss on the healing process of dental implants and to determine the quality of the bone that surrounds them. The objective of the present study was to compare systemic osteoporosis (axial and femoral) and parameters of mandibular bone quality, and to evaluate osseointegration in postmenopausal women receiving dental implants. Methods: The sample consisted of 39 women aged 48-70 years, 19 with a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis in the lumbar spine and femoral neck and 20 controls with a normal densitometric diagnosis. Bone mineral density was measured in the patients and controls by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Eighty-two osseointegrated dental implants were placed in the mandible, 39 of them in the osteoporosis group and 43 in the control group. Mandibular bone quality was evaluated by classifying mandibular inferior cortical and trabecular bone on panoramic radiographs and by histomorphometric analysis of a mandibular bone biopsy. Osseointegration was analyzed after 9 months. Results: No significant difference was observed between patients with osteoporosis and controls when comparing individuals with a normal cortex and those with a severely or moderately eroded cortex determined on panoramic radiographs, although patients with MEC/SEC had lower femoral neck BMD than those with NC (0.688 ± 0.17 vs. 0.814 ± 0.144 g/cm 2 , P<0.012). Histomorphometric analysis also revealed no difference in the parameters of bone formation or resorption between the two groups. Implant failure was observed in only one case. Conclusion: We conclude that there is an association between low femoral neck BMD and poor mandibular bone quality as assessed by panoramic radiography. The loss of one implant (1.2%) is compatible with the literature and cannot be attributed to systemic osteoporosis.

We conclude that there is no association between systemic osteoporosis (axial and femur) and parameters of poor mandibular bone quality. The loss of one implant (1.2%) is compatible with the literature and cannot be attributed to systemic osteoporosis.

No abstract

Background : Oral rehabilitation with dental implants is conditioned by the bone available and by the presence of anatomical structures which conditionate the size of dental implants. The use of short and ultrashort implants avoids extra surgical procedures and eventual complications.The definition of short implants has been changed successively. The last European BDIZ EDI consensus in 2016 defined short implants for those smaller 8 mm in size and ultrashort implants smaller than 6 mm in size Aim/Hypothesis : The aim of this study is to determine cumulative survival rate of short and ultrashort dental implants (BTI Biotechnology Institute -Spain), in a dental unit center (UMD CCL -SSCGD), in Lisbon, Portugal Materials and Methods : A retrospective study design was adapted. From a total of 388 patients with a 675 short and ultrashort dental implants over 3 years period (2016 to 2018), we selected 144 patients (60 woman 84 men) with 248 short and ultrashort dental implants placed by the same oral surgeon and rehabilitated by the same restorative dentist. 67.7% of implants are 8.5 mm length, 23% are 7.5 mm length, 8.1% are 6.5 mm length and 1.2% are 5.5 mm length. The follow-up varies from 3 months to 3 years Results : In this study the survival rate is 97.5%. 114 implants (45.97%) were placed in 60 female patients (41.7%) and 134 implants (54.03%) were placed in 84 male patients (58.3%). The mean age was 61.2. 6 implants failed (2.5%). 3 of these 6 implants were not placed because of lack of primary stability. The other three, one failed for late infection in the osseointegration phase and the other two failed because fibrointegrated (one in a total maxillary provisional bridge immediate loading and other one a single crown in maxilla with a implant-crown ratio of 3-1 and after 11 months of rehabilitation). Conclusion and Clinical Implications: Within the limitation of the study the use of short and ultrashort implants seems to be a good alternative treatment to regenerated surgery.

Background : Dental implant placement in osteofasciocutaneous free fibula flaps (OSCFFF) presents a special clinical challenge in implantology. Extensive vertical height loss caused by bone resorption, with a consequential width and height reduction of the alveolar ridge, remains a frequent problem and is often considered a major drawback. Because of the structural diversity, drilling into OSCFFF can be demanding. Often it is difficult to achieve primary stability of the implants, and therefore pre-surgical implant placement planning is necessary. As patients in need of OSCFFF represent a therapeutically demanding group of patients, even when satisfying dental implant osseointegration is achieved, it is not easy to obtain a satisfactory long-term oral rehabilitation.Aim/Hypothesis : To show advantages and the importance of pre-surgical planning in patients in need for mid-facial reconstruction using OSCFFF. We present a 10-year follow-up OSCFFF reconstruction case in which the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation between maxillofacial surgeons, oral surgeons and prosthodontists is shown.Materials and Methods : A female patient had undergone total medial maxillary reconstruction 10 years ago, due to the gingival squamous cell carcinoma. Radiotherapy had not been performed and two years after she had no signs of recurrence. Four 3.5 × 11 mm dental implants (Ankylos Dentsply Implants, Germany) were placed in the regions of the second incisors and first premolars. One year after, vestibuloplasty was performed and four osseointegrated implants were opened. Due to the absence of hard palate tissue, a bar retained reduced total prosthesis was placed. Patient was satisfied with the end-result and after 8 years she came to replace the prosthesis. A control panoramic x -ray was taken which showed no bone resorption around the implants.Results : After 10 years, satisfactory functionality and esthetics of the implant-prosthetic reconstruction in OSCFFF graft were observed. Conclusion and ClinicalImplications : OSCFFF presents a valuable technique for major facial reconstructions. After inserting dental implants in OSCFFF reconstructed jaws, the healing period should be extended from 9-12 months. Vestibuloplasty is recommended before placing the dentures. Dental implant placement in OSCFFF presents a valuable solution for major dentoalveolar defects.