Jaw, Edentulous, Partially

The aim of is to compare the survival rate and technical outcomes of cantilever implant-supported fixed denture prosthetics (cFDPs) made either out of monolithic zirconia bonded to a titanium base in a digital workflow, or porcelain fused-to metal using a gold abutment in a conventional workflow. In addition, biological outcomes, wear patterns, PROMs and time efficiency will be recorded. The null hypothesis is: the reconstruction type does not influence the survival rate and technical outcomes of 2-unit implant-supported cFDP.

The microthreaded and platform switched implants could control the stress in the suitable range. The splint would disturb the function. So it is necessary to know whether the splinted single-unit crowns is fit for the adjacent multi-implants. Outcome variables: Splinted single-unit crowns on one side implants and non-splinted single-unit crowns on the other side Materials and method: 80-100 consecutive implants in at least 20 patients would be included for implant- supported restorations in the posterior maxilla or mandibular. All patients would be in general good health. For every patient, the same posterior teeth had lost on both sides for more than 6 months. All patients were treated by the same qualified surgeon. Prosthetics procedure would be performed by an experienced prosthodontist. The two sides were allocated to the test or the control group according to the predefined computer-generated randomization table. Clinical evaluations and radiographic analysis were performed by an oral and maxillofacial radiologist who was not aware of the type of Prosthetics technique that was used.

Placement of implants in diabetic patients is associated with higher risk of implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss due to an increased susceptibility to infections, impaired wound healing and associated microvascular complications. However, diabetic patients do not encounter a higher implant failure rate compared with non-diabetic patients, if the plasma glucose levels are normal. Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla with implants is frequently compromised due to atrophy of the alveolar process and pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with autogenous bone graft is generally considered the preferred grafting material due to its osteoinductive, osteogenic, and osteoconductive properties. However, harvesting of autogenous bone graft is associated with risk of donor site morbidity and unpredictable resorption of the graft. Thus, bone substitutes, blood coagulum and platelet rich fibrin are used increasingly to simplify the surgical procedure. Fabrication of advanced platelet rich fibrin (APRF) from blood samples possess significant potential for bone regeneration without the use of additional autogenous bone grafts or bone substitutes. Consequently, use of APRF in conjunction with MSFA will avoid bone harvesting and simplify the surgical procedure. The objective is to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with particulated autogenous bone graft compared with APRF. Forty consecutively insulin-dependent diabetes patients with missing posterior maxillary tooth/teeth will be allocated to implant placement and MSFA with particulated autogenous bone graft from the zygomatic buttress or APRF. Blood samples will be obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. Clinical and radiographical evaluation using periapical radiographs and CBCT will be performed preoperatively, immediate postoperatively, before abutment connection, after prosthetic rehabilitation, one year, three years and five years after loading to assess the implant treatment outcome and the volumetric changes of the augmented area. Outcome measures will include survival of suprastructures and implants, volumetric stability of the augmented area, peri-implant marginal bone level, immunological analyses of blood samples, oral health related quality of life, and complications related to the two treatment modalities.

The aim of this prospective cohort study is to compare the esthetic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes following immediate and delayed implant placement protocols.