Literature DB >> 28944373

Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature.

Joannis Katsoulis, Takuro Takeichi, Ana Sol Gaviria, Lukas Peter, Konstantinos Katsoulis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Compromised fit between the contact surfaces of screw-retained implant-supported fixed dentures (IFDs) is thought to create uncontrolled strains in the prosthetic components and peri-implant tissues, thus evoking biological and technical complications such as bone loss, screw loosening, component fractures and, at worst, loss of implants or prostheses. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of marginal misfit on the clinical outcomes of IFDs, and to elucidate definition and assessment methods for passive fit.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted with a PICO question: "For partially or complete edentulous subjects with screw-retained IFDs, does the marginal misfit at the implant-prosthesis interfaces have an impact on the clinical outcomes?". A literature search was performed electronically in PubMed (MEDLINE) with the help of Boolean operators to combine key words, and by hand search in relevant journals. English written in vivo studies published before August 31, 2016 that reported on both clinical outcome and related implant prosthesis misfit (gap, strains, torque) were selected using predetermined inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2626 records. After screening and a subsequent filtering process, five human and five animal studies were included in the descriptive analysis. The selected studies used different methods to assess misfit (linear distortion, vertical gap, strains, screw torque). While two human studies evaluated the biological response and technical complications prospectively over 6 and 12 months, the animal studies had an observation period < 12 weeks. Four human studies analysed retrospectively the 3 to 32 years' outcomes. Screw-related complications were observed, but biological sequelae could not be confirmed. Although the animal studies had different designs, bone adaptation and implant displacement was found in histological analyses. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogenic designs and misfit assessment methods, no meta-analysis of the data could be performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature provides insufficient evidence as to the effect of misfit at the prosthesis-implant interface on clinical outcomes of screw-retained implant-supported fixed dentures. Marginal gaps and static strains due to screw tightening were not found to have negative effects on initial osseointegration or peri-implant bone stability over time. Based on two clinical studies, the risk for technical screw-related complications was slightly higher. While the degree of tolerable misfit remains a matter of debate, the present data do not imply that clinicians neglect good fit, but aim to achieve the least misfit possible. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The review was conducted as part of the 2016 Foundation of Oral Rehabilitation Consensus Conference on "Prosthetic Protocols in Implant-based Oral Rehabilitation".

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28944373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol        ISSN: 1756-2406            Impact factor:   3.123


  12 in total

1.  A new 3D-method to assess the inter implant dimensions in patients - A pilot study.

Authors:  Alexander Schmidt; Jan-Wilhelm Billig; Maximiliane A Schlenz; Bernd Wöstmann
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-02-01

2.  Effect of Fabrication Technique on the Microgap of CAD/CAM Cobalt-Chrome and Zirconia Abutments on a Conical Connection Implant: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Pedro Molinero-Mourelle; Rocio Cascos-Sanchez; Burak Yilmaz; Walter Yu Hang Lam; Edmond Ho Nang Pow; Jaime Del Río Highsmith; Miguel Gómez-Polo
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Conical connection adjustment in prosthetic abutments obtained by different techniques.

Authors:  Roser Camós-Tena; Tomás Escuin-Henar; Sergi Torné-Duran
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2019-05-01

4.  Monolithic and Minimally Veneered Zirconia Complications as Implant-Supported Restorative Material: A Retrospective Clinical Study up to 5 Years.

Authors:  Markel Diéguez-Pereira; David Chávarri-Prado; Alejandro Estrada-Martínez; Esteban Pérez-Pevida; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies.

Authors:  Ryan Jin Young Kim; Goran I Benic; Ji-Man Park
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  The effect of the digital manufacturing technique of cantilevered implant-supported frameworks on abutment screw preload.

Authors:  Shahad Mohammmed Altuwaijri; Hanan Nejer Alotaibi; Talal Mughaileth Alnassar
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 1.904

7.  Titanium Base Abutments in Implant Prosthodontics: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Ahmad M Al-Thobity
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2021-11-18

8.  In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems.

Authors:  Jaime Orejas-Perez; Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez; Ignacio Ortiz-Collado; Israel J Thuissard; Andrea Santamaria-Laorden
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-04-03       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 9.  Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.

Authors:  Minoru Sanda; Keita Miyoshi; Kazuyoshi Baba
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-07-27

10.  Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study.

Authors:  Agne Gedrimiene; Rimas Adaskevicius; Vygandas Rutkunas
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 1.904

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.