RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The present retrospective study assessed the clinical performance of abutment screws from prefabricated metal abutments and compared technical complication rates between straight and angled abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental charts were selected for patients with dental implant rehabilitations delivered between 1998 and 2012. Abutment angulation, prosthetic screw type, and presence of complications that occurred during the selected time period were collected. Technical complications registered included abutment screw loosening and/or fractures detected during clinical and radiographic examinations. The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Abutment angulations were divided into 2 groups: G1) prefabricated straight abutments and G2) prefabricated angled conical mini UCLA-type abutments. A total of 916 implants (799 straight and 117 angled conical mini UCLA-type abutments) were evaluated. G1 showed 91.1% had absence of failures, which were clinically defined as any screw loosening or fracture; and 8.9% reported some type of technical complication. G2 showed 92.3% and 7.7%, with and without technical complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed between abutment angulation and technical complications.
RESUMO
The objective of the present study is to find a solution for patients who have multiple implants that are poorly placed in the posterior mandible and require a solution to be rehabilitated, taking into account some diagnostic principles such as maintenance of the occlusal plane, maintenance of correct dental arch inclination, and adequate vertical dimension.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of local and systemic factors on additional peri-implant bone loss. METHOD AND MATERIALS: From a total of 253 patients, 193 were selected (126 women) and restored with 722 implants, in place for at least 1 year. Patients had previously attended the supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy program at the Department of Implant Dentistry at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. The study was divided according to physiologic (PBL < 2 mm) or additional bone loss (ABL >= 2 mm) evaluated from the time of prosthesis placement to the reassessment visit. Data collection and analysis included evaluation of systemic factors, such as history of periodontal disease, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, kidney disease, alcohol abuse, smoking habits, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, menopause, and hormone replacement. Analysis of local factors included implant platform, diameter, location, time in function, and type of prosthesis. RESULTS: No systemic factors influenced ABL (P > .05). Considering local factors, only time in function and type of prosthesis influenced ABL (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Fixed partial dental prostheses and full-arch fixed prostheses present higher rates of ABL. In addition, all types of prostheses showed greater ABL when in function for more than 4 years.