RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Full-arch immediate function protocols such as the All-on-4 concept need long-term validation. PURPOSE: To report the 5-13 year outcomes of the All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective case series study involved 1072 patients (4288 maxillary implants) rehabilitated through the All-on-4 treatment concept. Primary outcome measures were cumulative prosthetic and implant success (life table analysis). Secondary outcome measures consisted in marginal bone loss (MBL) at 5 and 10 years, biological and mechanical complications. The estimation of risk indicators was performed through multivariable analysis for the outcome variables implant failure (Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]), MBL > 2.8 mm at 5 years, MBL > 3.0 mm at 10 years, biological and mechanical complications (binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios [OR] with 95% CI). RESULTS: Eighteen patients deceased unrelated to the implant treatment (1.7%) and 219 patients (20.4%) were lost to follow-up. The prosthetic success rate was 99.2%; Implant cumulative survival and success rate was 94.7% and 93.9%, respectively, with up to 13 years of follow-up. Male gender (HR = 1.73), smoking (HR = 1.94), and mechanical complications (HR = 0.59) were significantly associated with implant failure. Average MBL at 5 and 10 years was 1.18 mm (95% CI: 1.16, 1.21) and 1.67 mm (95% CI: 1.58, 1.77) with age (OR = 0.97), male gender (OR = 0.58), smoking (OR = 1.73), and biological complications (OR = 2.1) associated with MBL > 2.8 mm at 5 years. The incidence of biological complications was 7.8% at implant level, with age (OR = 0.98) and smoking (OR = 1.53) significantly associated. The incidence of mechanical complications was 58.8% for the provisional prostheses and 7.3% for the definitive prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: The high success rates registered for both implants and prostheses together with the low MBL confirm the All-on-4 treatment concept is predictable and safe in the long term outcome.
Asunto(s)
Implantes Dentales , Arcada Edéntula , Prótesis Dental de Soporte Implantado , Fracaso de la Restauración Dental , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Maxilar , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Epilepsy surgery can be a successful treatment option for temporal lobe epilepsy but there are concerns about accelerated memory decline in long-term follow-up. METHOD: 161 adult operated (77 right, 84 left temporal resections) versus a heterogeneous group of 208 non-operated patients with focal epilepsies were consecutively recruited and re-evaluated focusing on memory, executive functions, and vocational outcome after follow-up intervals of >5 years (5-22 years, mean 8 ± 3 years). RESULTS: Major losses in the operated group manifest early, at one-year follow-up. Few patients declined further. Long-term changes after surgery did not differ from those observed without surgery. The factor "surgery" caused verbal memory decline, "seizure freedom" (operated 48%, non-operated 17%) was associated with recovery of verbal memory, and "drug reduction" positively affected the course of executive functions. In terms of the critical function of verbal memory, only 3-17% of seizure-free patients showed long-term decline whereas 16-20% showed improvement (operated and non-operated). Persistent seizures were associated with decline in 12-37% and improvement in 4-12% of patients. Improvement was related to longer retest intervals and was stronger in younger patients. Independent of surgery or seizure outcome, the vocational status remained unchanged or change was negative (22%) rather than positive (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' cognitive course 5-22 years after surgery is stable and may even be positive if epilepsy is controlled and drug load reduced. Depending on seizure outcome, recovery is more frequently observed than continuing decline. Recovery, however, takes time and age is a limiting factor.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos del Conocimiento/etiología , Epilepsia del Lóbulo Temporal/complicaciones , Epilepsia del Lóbulo Temporal/cirugía , Procedimientos Neuroquirúrgicos/métodos , Recuperación de la Función/fisiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Memoria/fisiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Pruebas Neuropsicológicas , Análisis de Regresión , Factores de Tiempo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is need for more scientific and clinical information on longer-term outcomes of tilted implants compared to implants inserted in an axial position. PURPOSE: Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success after a 5-year follow-up between axial and tilted implants inserted for full-arch maxillary rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective clinical study included 891 patients with 3564 maxillary implants rehabilitated according to the All-on-4 treatment concept. The follow-up time was 5 years. Linear mixed-effect models were performed to analyze the influence of implant orientation (axial/tilted) on marginal bone loss and binary logistic regression to assess the effect of patient characteristics on occurrence of marginal bone loss >2.8 mm. Only those patients with measurements of at least one axial and one tilted implant available were analyzed. This resulted in a data set of 2379 implants (1201 axial, 1178 tilted) in 626 patients (=reduced data set). RESULTS: Axial and tilted implants showed comparable mean marginal bone losses of 1.14 ± 0.71 and 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, respectively. Mixed model analysis indicated that marginal bone loss levels at 5 years follow up was not significantly affected by the orientation (axial/tilted) of the implants in the maxillary bone. Smoking and female gender were associated with marginal bone loss >2.8 mm in a logistic regression analysis. Five-year implant success rates were 96%. The occurrence of implant failure showed to be statistically independent from orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study and considering a follow-up time of 5 years, it can be concluded that tilted implants behave similarly with regards to marginal bone loss and implant success in comparison to axial implants in full-arch rehabilitation of the maxilla. Longer-term outcomes (10 years +) are needed to verify this result.