Polyetheretherketone subperiosteal implant retaining a maxillary fixed prosthesis: A case series

Elsawy, Mohammed A.; ELgamal, Mohamed E.; Ahmed, Wael Mohamed Said; EL-daker, Medhat A.; Hegazy, Salah

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.027

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twelve articles were assessed for eligibility, but after a deep analysis of the article, 4 were excluded for the following reasons: No information available to answer the PICO question ( n = 1) [ 30 , 34 ]. Not complying with inclusion criteria: Implants additively manufactured ( n = 1) [ 35 ]. Same patient series as in another already included study [ 36 ] and no information available to answer the PICO question ( n = 1) [ 37 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As these materials could be considered very experimental, the group of 5 PEEK SI of the study of Mounir et al [ 45 ] was excluded in the present review. Apart from the data of this study, a case series of 4 edentulous patients was published by Elsawy et al [ 35 ] reporting survival of all the maxillary SI and no complications after a 12-month follow-up period. All the PEEK SI in their study had been manufactured with a 5-axis milling machine, therefore the study did not match the eligibility criteria of the present systematic review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Anitua,

Eguia,

Staudigl

et al. 2024

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess implant survival and complications rate of modern subperiosteal implants (CAD designed and additively manufactured). Methods A systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “In patients with bone atrophy (P), do additively manufactured subperiosteal implants (I), compared to subperiosteal implants manufactured following traditional approaches (c), present satisfactory implant survival and complication rates (O)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023424211). Included articles quality was assessed using the “NIH quality assessment tools”. Results Thirteen articles were finally selected (5 cohort studies and 8 case series), including 227 patients (121 female / 106 male; weighted mean age 62.4 years) and 227 implants. After a weighted mean follow-up time of 21.4 months, 97.8% of implants were in function (5 failures reported), 58 implants (25.6%) presented partial exposure, 12 patients (5.3%) suffered soft tissue or persistent infection. Fracture of the interim prosthesis was reported in 8 of the155 patients (5.2%) in which the use of a provisional prosthesis was reported. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, modern additively manufactured subperiosteal implants presented a good survival in the short-time, but a noticeable number of soft-tissue related complications were reported. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical behavior in the medium- and long-term. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Anitua,

Eguia,

Staudigl

et al. 2024

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from the design features, rigid and far-away fixation from the transition zone of the posts through the soft tissue into the oral cavity is not shown in the literature either [ 19 , 20 ]. Many cases are published in which the amount of metal close to the transition zone through the soft tissue is too high, the extension of the footplate is too small, the number of screws is too low and the position of the screws is too close to the posts [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Evaluation of patient satisfaction after dental rehabilitation using modern sub-periosteal CAD/CAM implants in severe cases shows that this less invasive technique has a high acceptance [ 30 , 31 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exceptional Cases Demand Exceptional Personalized Solutions: The Next Level in Dental Rehabilitation

Gellrich,

Korn,

Jehn

et al. 2024

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defects and bone loss in the maxilla and mandible pose significant challenges for dental rehabilitation. This paper focuses on complex cases of bimaxillary dental rehabilitation, where traditional dental implant protocols were not feasible in at least one jaw. Four patients were examined conceptually, where conventional dental implant placement (n = 20) was combined in either the same or opposite jaw with a patient-specific subperiosteal implant (n = 5). This study evaluates aspects such as primary stability, prosthodontic restoration, complications, and soft tissue management over the observation period. None of the five patient-specific subperiosteal implants (IPS Implants® Preprosthetic; KLS-Martin Group, Tuttlingen, Germany) experienced failure or showed any loosening of screws, with the longest observation period extending to 68 months. These implants were securely fixated away from the posts, without any biomechanical restrictions on loading from the time of insertion. Planning and manufacturing, including the initial suprastructure, followed a fully digital workflow. The number of screws required for multivector fixation ranged from 13 to 22. All dental implants placed remain functional, definitive prosthodontic restoration has been performed, and no stability loss or peri-implantitis has been observed. The IPS Implants® Preprosthetic emerges as a valuable consideration when conventional implant dentistry protocols encounter limitations.

show abstract

Subperiosteal implants constructed with digital technology: A systematic review

El-Sawy,

Hegazy

2024

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polyetheretherketone subperiosteal implant retaining a maxillary fixed prosthesis: A case series

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Exceptional Cases Demand Exceptional Personalized Solutions: The Next Level in Dental Rehabilitation

Subperiosteal implants constructed with digital technology: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About