RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To compare miniscrew versus bone tracing registration methods on dental implant placement accuracy and time efficiency in edentulous jaws using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS) system. METHODS: Twelve fully edentulous maxillary models were allocated into two groups: miniscrew tracing (MST) group, where registration was performed by tracing four miniscrews; and bone tracing (BT) group, where registration was conducted by tracing maxillary bone fiducial landmarks. Six implants were placed on each model using the X-Guide® d-CAIS system. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were superimposed to evaluate implant placement accuracy. The time required for registration and the overall surgery time were also recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-six implants were placed in each group. The MST group showed significantly lower mean angulation deviations (mean difference (MD): -3.33°; 95 % confidence interval (CI): -6.56 to -0.09); p = 0.044), 3D platform deviations (MD: -1.01 mm; 95 % CI: -1.74 to -0.29; p = 0.006), 2D platform deviations (MD: -0.97 mm; 95 % CI: -1.71 to -0.23; p = 0.010), and 3D apex deviations (MD: -1.18 mm; 95 % CI: -1.92 to -0.44; p = 0.002) versus the BT group. The overall surgery time was similar for both groups (MD: 6.10 min.; 95 % CI: -0.31 to 12.51; p = 0.06), though bone tracing required significantly more time compared with miniscrew registration (MD: 4.79 min.; 95 % CI: 2.96 to 6.62; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Registration with MST increases the accuracy of implant placement with a d-CAIS system in edentulous jaws compared with the BT method, and slightly reduces the overall surgery time. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Miniscrew tracing registration improves implant placement accuracy in comparison with bone tracing registration.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Several treatment-oriented classifications for the management of peri-implant marginal mucosal defects (PMMDs) have been published to date. While each classification provides valuable insights into key diagnostic and therapeutic aspects, there is a marked heterogeneity regarding the recommended clinical guidelines to achieve success in specific scenarios. The purpose of this review was to critically analyze and organize the similarities and differences enclosed in the available classifications linked with treatment recommendations on the management of PMMDs at single implant non-molar sites with the purpose of providing an overview of recommended interdisciplinary treatment options to facilitate clinical decision-making processes.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and operative time of implant placement using a dynamic computer assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system based on a cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) image, with and without superimposing a standard tessellation language (STL) file of an intraoral scan of the patient. METHODS: Ten identical resin models simulating an upper maxilla with posterior edentulism were assigned to two groups. In the CBCT+STL group, a CBCT file and an intraoral STL file were superimposed and used for registration; in the CBCT group, registration was performed using CBCT images. Six implants were placed in each model using the Navident® dynamic navigation system. Anatomy registration was performed by tracing fiducial points on the CBCT or STL image, depending on the group. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT images were overlaid to assess implant placement accuracy. RESULTS: Sixty implants were analyzed (30 implants in each group). 3D platform deviation was significantly lower (mean difference (MD): 0.17 mm; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.01 to 0.23; P = 0.039) in the CBCT+STL group (mean: 0.71 mm; standard deviation (SD): 0.29) than in the CBCT group (mean: 0.88 mm; SD: 0.39). The remaining accuracy outcome variables (angular deviation MD: -0.01; platform lateral deviation MD: 0.08 mm; apex global MD: 0.01 mm; apex depth MD: 0.33 mm) and surgery time (MD: 3.383 min.) were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of an intraoral scan (STL) seems to reduce deviations slightly in dental implant placement with dCAIS systems. However, the clinical repercussion of this improvement is questionable. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Superimposing an intraoral scan on the CBCT image does not seem to increase the accuracy of dCAIS systems but can be useful when radiographic artifacts are present.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the histological outcomes of three distinct de-epithelialization methods used in (connective tissue grafts) CTG harvested from the palate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An experimental study using nine cadaver head specimens was carried out to compare 3 different de-epithelialization techniques for CTG. Eighteen samples were randomly allocated to three study groups: bone scraper, diamond bur and extraoral removal with a scalpel. The main outcome variable was the graft surface percentage without epithelium remains. Additionally, the time employed, and the graft thickness were also measured. RESULTS: Sixteen CTGs were analyzed. The extraoral scalpel group presented a total surface area with no epithelium of 58.84% (22.68) and a mean de-epithelialization time of 3.7 min; the intraoral diamond bur group had 88.24% (41.3) of the surface with no epithelium and took 1.455 min, and the intraoral bone scraper showed 97.98% (5.99) of surface without epithelium and a mean time of 0.815 min (P < 0.05). Histological analysis showed significant differences between the bone scraper and the extraoral group (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The de-epithelialization technique with a bone scraper seems to be the most effective and fastest de-epithelialization technique for CTG. These findings need to be confirmed in future clinical studies with larger samples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of bone scrapers, could be a simple, effective and fast technique to de-epithelialize connective tissue grafts harvested from the palatal area for both novice and experienced surgeons.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the effect the radiographic marker registration (RMR) and markerless tracing registration (MTR) on implant placement accuracy using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS). Additionally, this study aimed to assess the surgical time and whether the implant location influences the accuracy of the two registration methods. METHODS: 136 dental implants were randomly allocated to the RMR or MTR group and were placed with a dCAIS in resin models. Preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomograms (CBCT) were overlaid and implant placement accuracy was assessed. Descriptive and multivariate analysis of the data was performed. RESULTS: Significant differences (P < 0.001) were found for all accuracy variables except angular deviation (RMR:4.30° (SD:4.37°); MTR:3.89° (SD:3.32°)). The RMR had a mean 3D platform deviation of 1.53 mm (SD:0.98 mm) and mean apex 3D deviation of 1.63 mm (SD:1.05 mm) while the MTR had lower values (0.83 mm (SD:0.67 mm) and 1.07 mm (SD:0.86 mm), respectively). In the MTR group, implant placement in the anterior mandible was more accurate (p < 0.05). Additionally, MTR did not significantly increase the surgical time compared with RMR (P = 0.489). CONCLUSIONS: MTR seems to increase the accuracy of implant placement using dCAIS in comparison with the RMR method, without increasing the surgical time. The operated area seems to be relevant and might influence the implant deviations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Considering the limitations of this in-vitro study, MTR seems to provide a higher accuracy in implant placement using dCAIS without increasing the surgical time. Furthermore, this method does not require radiographic markers and allows re-registration during surgery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The aim was to assess periodontal health maintenance and gingival recessions development in patients undergoing an orthodontic treatment with clear aligners (CA) and fixed appliances (FA). Material and methods: An electronic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed up to September 2022 to identify all potential articles. Two investigators independently selected the studies according to the inclusion criteria. Prospective and retrospective studies assessing the periodontal health status and gingival recession development during the orthodontic treatment with buccal FA and CA were included. Case series, cross-sectional studies, and studies with less than two months of follow-up were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted the data from included articles and assessed risk of bias across studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data were performed. Pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model were used to compare periodontal indices between FA and CA treatment in different follow-up periods. Results: From the 129 potential studies, finally 12 studies were included. Only 8 could be included in the quantitative analysis. CA seems to slightly maintain better periodontal health indices. Only plaque index in a mid-term follow-up (mean difference (MD): -0.99; 95%; Confidence interval (CI) [-1.94 to -0.03]; P=.04; I2=99%), and pocket probing depth at a long-term follow-up (MD: -0.93mm; 95% CI [-1.16 to 0.7]; P<0.0001) reported statistically significant results favoring CA. Conclusions: Up to the date there is not enough evidence to conclude that CA maintains better periodontal health during an orthodontic treatment than FA. (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Pterygoid hamular bursitis is an infrequent cause of orofacial pain due to a hypertrophic pterygoid hamulus. The pain is often referred to the pharynx, temporomandibular region and facial zone, and requires a differential diagnosis with other craniofacial entities. This paper describes a patient with pterygoid hamular bursitis that presented pain of neuropathic characteristics in the left retromolar region, associated with odynophagia and temporomandibular joint disorders. Based on the clinical and radiological findings, a surgical resection of the pterygoid hamulus was decided. After the surgical procedure the patient still reported symptoms so additional specific treatments such as peripheral nerve block and infiltration were performed. Four months later, the patient developed a squamous cell carcinoma on the left margin of the tongue, which was surgically treated. At present (thirty months follow-up), the patient has no pain or signs of tumor relapse. Key words:Pterygoid hamular bursitis, orofacial pain, oral carcinoma, temporomandibular joint disorders, radiofrequency, neuropathic pain.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess dental implant placement accuracy with a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system and a freehand approach. Secondarily, to compare the patients' perception and quality of life (QoL) with the two approaches. METHODS: A double-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted. Consecutive partially edentulous patients were randomly allocated to the dCAIS or standard freehand approach groups. Implant placement accuracy was evaluated by overlapping the preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomographs (CBCT) and recording linear deviations at the implant apex and platform (in mm) and angular deviations (in degrees). Questionnaires recorded self-reported satisfaction, pain and QoL during surgery and postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty patients (22 implants) were enrolled in each group. One patient was lost to follow-up. A significant difference (p < .001) in mean angular deviation was found between the dCAIS (4.02°; 95% CI: 2.85 to 5.19) and the FH (7.97°; 95% CI: 5.36 to 10.58) groups. Linear deviations were significantly lower in the dCAIS group, except for the apex vertical deviation, where no differences were found. Although dCAIS took 14 min longer (95% CI: 6.43 to 21.24; p < .001), patients in both groups considered the surgical time acceptable. Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption during the first postoperative week were similar between groups and self-reported satisfaction was very high. CONCLUSION: dCAIS systems significantly increase the accuracy of implant placement in partially edentulous patients in comparison with the conventional freehand approach. However, they increase the surgical time significantly and do not seem to improve patient satisfaction or reduce postoperative pain.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of the computer-guided "double factor" technique for treating fully edentulous patients. METHODS: A proof of concept prospective study was designed. Ten consecutive patients requiring full arch dental implant supported rehabilitation in a private practice were enrolled between October 2021 and March 2022. All patients were treated by means of an All-on-four®, and implants were planned and placed according to the "double factor" technique. This technique merges the static and dynamic computer-guided surgical approach in the same surgery. The primary outcome was the accuracy of implant placement, measured by overlapping post- and pre-operative cone-beam computerized tomography with the implant planning. Additionally, PROMs and patient quality of life after surgery were evaluated using different questionnaires. Descriptive and bivariate data analyses were performed. Statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 48 implants were placed using the "double factor" technique, and 12 full-arch immediate loading prostheses were delivered. The mean angular deviation was 3.74° (standard deviation [SD]: 2). The total linear deviation at the apex and platform of the implant was 1.25 mm (SD: 0.55) and 1.42 mm (SD: 0.64), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between tilted and axial implants, the upper and lower jaw, or the right and left side. High self-reported satisfaction was registered, and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) score improved postoperatively (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The "double factor" technique is a valid and accurate treatment approach for fully edentulous patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The double factor technique merges the advantages of both the dynamic and static computer assisted surgery approaches, affording accurate and predictable results when treating fully edentulous patients in a minimally invasive manner.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of Serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen (sCTX) as a preoperative marker for predicting the risk of developing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) after invasive oral surgery in patients on antiresorptive medication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two authors independently searched four electronic databases up to March 25, 2021, for case-control studies and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that assessed preoperative sCTX levels in patients taking antiresorptive medication who underwent oral surgery procedures. The main outcome was the number of MRONJ cases in patients with an sCTX value lower and higher than 150 pg/mL. Qualitative and quantitative data was extracted in tables and the risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were expressed as sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratio (LR - and LR +), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The data were combined using random-effects models based on the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results were as follows: sensitivity 57% (95%CI: 41-71%), specificity 72% (95%CI: 64-79%), LR + 2 (95%CI: 1.3-3.1), LR - 0.6 (95%CI: 0.4-0.9), and DOR 3.4 (95%CI: 1.5-7.7). CONCLUSIONS: The low overall performance of sCTX indicates that this parameter is not suitable for predicting MRONJ risk in patients on antiresorptive medication who need an oral surgery procedure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: sCTX should not be considered a reliable preoperative marker to predict MRONJ development.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A novel computer-assisted surgery (CAS) technique that merges dynamic and static CAS approaches to treat completely edentulous patients with dental implants is described. Radiographic and surgical stents are designed with specific fiducial markers that are recognized by the static and dynamic CAS software program. During the surgical procedure, implants are placed following the static surgical guide and the indications from the dynamic navigation system. This technique combines the advantages of static and dynamic CAS approaches to allow accurate and predictable minimally invasive implant placement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) systems when used to place dental implants and to compare its accuracy with static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS) systems and freehand implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was made to identify all relevant studies reporting on the accuracy of dCAIS systems for dental implant placement. The following PICO question was developed: "In patients or artificial models, is dental implant placement accuracy higher when dCAIS systems are used in comparison with sCAIS systems or with freehand placement? The main outcome variable was angular deviation between the central axes of the planned and final position of the implant. The data were extracted in descriptive tables, and a meta-analysis of single means was performed in order to estimate the deviations for each variable using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Out of 904 potential articles, the 24 selected assessed 9 different dynamic navigation systems. The mean angular and entry 3D global deviations for clinical studies were 3.68° (95% CI: 3.61 to 3.74; I2 = 99.4%) and 1.03 mm (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04; I2 = 82.4%), respectively. Lower deviation values were reported in in vitro studies (mean angular deviation of 2.01° (95% CI: 1.95 to 2.07; I2 = 99.1%) and mean entry 3D global deviation of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.48 ; I2 = 98.5%). No significant differences were found between the different dCAIS systems. These systems were significantly more accurate than sCAIS systems (mean difference (MD): -0.86°; 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.36) and freehand implant placement (MD: -4.33°; 95% CI: -5.40 to -3.25). CONCLUSION: dCAIS systems allow highly accurate implant placement with a mean angular of less than 4°. However, a 2-mm safety margin should be applied, since deviations of more than 1 mm were observed. dCAIS systems increase the implant placement accuracy when compared with freehand implant placement and also seem to slightly decrease the angular deviation in comparison with sCAIS systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of dCAIS could reduce the rate of complications since it allows a highly accurate implant placement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: To compare the accuracy of implant placement using the conventional freehand method and a dynamic navigation system; to assess the role of the surgeon's experience in implant placement using these two methods. Material and Methdos: A randomized in-vitro study was conducted. Six resin mandible models and 36 implants were used. Two researchers with differing clinical experience (novice and experienced) placed implants using either the Navident dynamic navigation system (navigation group) or the conventional freehand method (freehand group). Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative CBCT on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. Results: The navigation group showed significantly higher accuracy for all the variables studied except 3D entry and depth deviation. This system significantly enhanced the accuracy of the novice professional in several outcome variables in comparison with the freehand implant placement method. However, when the implants were placed by the experienced clinician the dynamic navigation system only improved angulation deviation. Significant differences were found between the 2 professionals when the freehand method was employed. Similar deviations were observed for the implants placed with the navigation system. Conclusions: Dynamic computer assisted surgery systems allow more accurate implant placement in comparison with the conventional freehand method, regardless of the surgeon's experience. However, this system seems to offer more advantages to novice professionals, since it allows them to reduce their deviations significantly and achieve similar results to those of experienced clinicians

No disponible

Asunto(s)