Books

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.

This case report describes the rehabilitation of an extremely atrophic posterior mandible using 4-mm ultrashort implants and reports clinical and radiographic outcomes 7 years after loading. The patient refused to undergo any other treatment, from the removable prosthesis to the reconstructive surgery, and asked for a fixed, minimally invasive solution in the shortest possible time. The residual bone height above the alveolar nerve was an average of about 5 mm, so it was decided to treat the patient with four 4-mm ultrashort implants. Within the limitations of this case report, this procedure appears successful at 7 years after loading in this specific case and could reduce invasiveness, rehabilitative times, and costs. However, longer follow-ups on a large number of patients coming from randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary before making more reliable recommendations.

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous atrophic arches. A total of 58 patients were included with a follow-up of 3 to 7 years after loading. Data seem to indicate that GBR with nonresorbable membranes can be a good clinical choice and suggest that it could be used to vertically reconstruct no more than 6 mm of bone in the posterior mandible. However, this technique remains difficult and requires expert surgeons.