Full mouth rehabilitation of the patient with severely mutilated dentition: a case report

Context: In contemporary prosthodontics, implant-supported dental prostheses are frequently utilized to restore function and esthetics for individuals who are edentulous. The prosthetic material selection has a big impact on long-term performance and maintenance needs. Methods: A retrospective review of patient files from the dental implant clinic of a tertiary care facility was done. Included were patients who had dental prosthesis supported by implants between January 2018 and December 2022. Data were gathered and examined on the prosthesis material, follow-up visits, and maintenance interventions (adjustments, repairs, and replacements). Results: Materials for 50 prostheses made of porcelain, 45 prostheses made of acrylic, 35 prostheses made of metal, and 40 prostheses made of composite were assessed. When it came to modifications and repairs, porcelain prosthesis needed less work than acrylic prostheses. Composite prostheses required the least amount of maintenance overall, whereas metal prostheses indicated a considerable demand for maintenance. Conclusion: Superior durability is provided by porcelain, frequent repairs are needed for acrylic, structural strength is provided by metal, and composite material gives promising esthetics with low maintenance requirements. These results highlight how crucial it is to take material properties into account when choosing a prosthesis to maximize long-term results and patient happiness.

Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses

Suman,

Munuganti,

Duseja

et al. 2024

Analysis of Long-Term Success and Biological Complications in Zygomatic Implant-Supported Prostheses

Dash,

Praveena,

Mansuri

et al. 2024

Introduction: Patients with significant maxillary atrophy who are not candidates for standard implants now have an option thanks to zygomatic implants. Long-term statistics on difficulties and success are, however, scarce. Methods: A tertiary care center’s patient data were retrospectively analyzed. Included were patients who underwent zygomatic implant surgery between 2017 and 2022. This research gathered and examined data on follow-up, surgical techniques, complications, demographics, and implant features. Findings: There were 100 patients in all. 92% of the implants were successful, and 92 of them survived. Peri-implantitis (20%), soft tissue dehiscence (15%), sinusitis (10%), prosthesis fracture (8%), and infection (5%), were among the biological consequences. In summary, zygomatic implants have the potential to help individuals with severe maxillary atrophy recover, but close observation and effective management of any problems are necessary to maximize results. To enhance patient care and improve treatment regimens, further research is required.

Single-Piece Implant Systems and its Longterm Stability: An Evaluative Research

Javiya,

Rajakumari,

Gorrepati

et al. 2024

Objective: The objective of this research was to compare the longstanding stability of single-piece implant systems to typical two-piece systems by analyzing patient records retrospectively. Methods: A retrospective examination of patient records from January 2010 to December 2020 was undertaken at the Department of Oral Implantology, University Hospital. The research included dental rehabilitation patients who got single- or two-piece implant systems. Patient demographics, implant features, surgical procedures, and follow-up results were extracted. Implant success rates, stability defined by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) utilizing Osstell ISQ®, and peri-implant bone loss evaluated by standardized periapical radiographs at baseline and follow-up visits were the main outcomes. Results: The research involved 320 patients (160 per cohort). The average patient age was 52.7 years, with 55% men. The mandibular region received 65% of implants, and the maxillary region the rest. Single-piece cohort A had 94.6% implant success, and two-piece cohort B 96.2%. Implant success rates were similar between cohorts (P = 0.412). The mean ISQ scores were 72.4 ± 4.8 in cohort A and 74.8 ± 5.1 in cohort B (P = 0.086). Peri-implant bone loss was 1.8 ± 0.7 mm in cohort A and 1.4 ± 0.6 mm in cohort B (P = 0.031). Conclusion: Single-piece implant systems provide a stable and successful alternative to classic two-piece systems. However, patient selection, surgical technique, and monitoring are essential to reduce peri-implant problems and improve clinical results. To improve implant dentistry patient care and evidence-based clinical practice, single-piece and two-piece implant systems’ design, biomechanical features, and longstanding performance should be studied.