Recent findings suggest that dental implant treatment can be carried out safely in diabetic patients with well-controlled glycemic status.1,2,15 But maintenance of well-controlled status is difficult to achieve in many patients and it has been shown that DM impairs bone healing around dental implants even with established osseointegration.8 Therefore, therapeutic approaches can be beneficial to avoid possible complications in diabetic patients, who will undergo dental implant treatment. Some approaches, which have been utilized in animal studies, include parathyroid hormone treatment, mesenchymal stem cell application, nerve growth factor injection, and implant surface modification.20,21,25,26 However, none of these experimental therapies have been accepted as a routine treatment method in clinical settings yet.
honda cbr 1300 cc implants
A gang that controls the districts of Watson and the Northside Industrial District (NID). You can easily recognize them by their intimidating faceplates and hostile optic implants, which not only indicates their gang affiliation but also their fetishization of cyberware and cybermodification.
This paper reviews the past, present, and future of the hydroxyapatite (HAp)-based biomaterials from the point of view of preparation of hard tissue replacement implants. Properties of the hard tissues are also described. The mechanical reliability of the pure HAp ceramics is low, therefore it cannot be used as artificial teeth or bones. For these reasons, various HAp-based composites have been fabricated, but only the HAp-coated titanium alloys have found wide application. Among the others, the microstructurally controlled HAp ceramics such as fibers/whiskers-reinforced HAp, fibrous HAp-reinforced polymers, or biomimetically fabricated HAp/collagen composites seem to be the most suitable ceramic materials for the future hard tissue replacement implants.
Marginal bone loss during bone healing exists around non-submerged dental implants. The aim of this study was to identify the relationship between different degrees of marginal bone loss during bone healing and the salivary microbiome. One hundred patients were recruited, and marginal bone loss around their implants was measured using cone beam computed tomography during a 3-month healing period. The patients were divided into three groups according to the severity of marginal bone loss. Saliva samples were collected from all subjected and were analysed using 16S MiSeq sequencing. Although the overall structure of the microbial community was not dramatically altered, the relative abundance of several taxonomic groups noticeably changed. The abundance of species in the phyla Spirochaeta and Synergistetes increased significantly as the bone loss became more severe. Species within the genus Treponema also exhibited increased abundance, whereas Veillonella, Haemophilus and Leptotrichia exhibited reduced abundances, in groups with more bone loss. Porphyromonasgingivalis, Treponemadenticola and Streptococcus intermedius were significantly more abundant in the moderate group and/or severe group. The severity of marginal bone loss around the non-submerged implant was associated with dissimilar taxonomic compositions. An increased severity of marginal bone loss was related to increased proportions of periodontal pathogenic species. These data suggest a potential role of microbes in the progression of marginal bone loss during bone healing.
With the improved macro- and micro-designs, dental implants enjoy a high survival rate. However, peri-implant bone loss has recently emerged to be the focus of implant therapy. As such, researchers and clinicians are in need of finding predictable techniques to treat peri-implant bone loss and stop its progression. Literature search on the currently available treatment modalities was performed and a brief description of each modality was provided. Numerous techniques have been proposed and none has been shown to be superior and effective in managing peri-implant bone loss. This may be because of the complex of etiological factors acting on the implant-supported prosthesis hence the treatment approach has to be individually tailored. Due to the lack of high-level clinical evidence on the management of peri-implant bone loss, the authors, through a literature review, attempt to suggest a decision tree or guideline, based on sound periodontal surgical principles, to aid clinicians in managing peri-implantitis associated bone loss. 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Eccentric posterior bone loss and associated glenoid retroversion represent challenges to glenoid placement during total shoulder arthroplasty. This bone loss can lead to poor stability and perforation of the glenoid during arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the morphology of glenoid bone loss for a spectrum of osteoarthritis patients using 3D computed tomography imaging and simulation software. This study included 29 patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with shoulder arthroplasty. Three-dimensional reconstruction of preoperative CT images was performed. Glenoid bone loss was measured at ten, vertically equidistant axial planes along the glenoid surface at four distinct anterior-posterior points on each plane. The images were fitted with modeled pegged glenoid implants to predict glenoid perforation. The 3D maps demonstrated greatest average bone loss posteriorly in the AP plane at the central axis of the glenoid in the SI plane. The average amount of bone loss was 3.85 mm. Walch A2 and B1 shoulders showed more central bone loss, while Walch B2 shoulders displayed more posterior and inferior bone loss. Patients with predicted peg perforation displayed significantly greater bone loss than those without predicted peg perforation (p = 0.037). Peg perforation was most common in Walch B2 shoulders occurring in the posterior direction involving the central and posterior-inferior peg. These data demonstrate an anatomic pattern of glenoid bone loss for different classes of glenohumeral arthritis. These findings can be used to develop various models of glenoid bone loss to guide surgeons, predict failures, and develop better glenoid implants. This study has been approved by the Cleveland Clinic IRB: Number 6235.
This retrospective study quantitatively analyzed the minimum prosthetic abutment height to eliminate bone loss after 4.7-mm-diameter implant placement in maxillary bone and how grafting techniques can affect the marginal bone loss in implants placed in maxillary areas. Two different implant types with a similar neck design were singularly placed in two groups of patients: the test group, with platform-switched implants, and the control group, with conventional (non-platform-switched) implants. Patients requiring bone augmentation underwent unilateral sinus augmentation using a transcrestal technique with mineralized xenograft. Radiographs were taken immediately after implant placement, after delivery of the prosthetic restoration, and after 12 months of loading. The average mesial and distal marginal bone loss of the control group (25 patients) was significantly more than twice that of the test group (26 patients), while their average abutment height was similar. Linear regression analysis highlighted a statistically significant inverse relationship between marginal bone loss and abutment height in both groups; however, the intercept of the regression line, both mesially and distally, was 50% lower for the test group than for the control group. The marginal bone loss was annulled with an abutment height of 2.5 mm for the test group and 3.0 mm for the control group. No statistically significant differences were found regarding marginal bone loss of implants placed in native maxillary bone compared with those placed in the grafted areas. The results suggest that the shorter the abutment height, the greater the marginal bone loss in cement-retained prostheses. Abutment height showed a greater influence in platform-switched than in non-platform-switched implants on the limitation of marginal bone loss.
To present a literature review on implant overdentures after a brief survey of bone loss after extraction of all teeth. Papers on alveolar bone loss and implant overdentures have been studied for a narrative review. Bone loss of the alveolar process after tooth extraction occurs with great individual variation, impossible to predict at the time of extraction. The simplest way to prevent bone loss is to avoid extraction of all teeth. To keep a few teeth and use them or their roots for a tooth or root-supported overdenture substantially reduces bone loss. Jaws with implant-supported prostheses show less bone loss than jaws with conventional dentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures provide patients with better outcomes than do conventional dentures, regarding satisfaction, chewing ability and oral-health-related quality of life. There is no strong evidence for the superiority of one overdenture retention-system over the others regarding patient satisfaction, survival, peri-implant bone loss and relevant clinical factors. Mandibular single midline implant overdentures have shown promising results but long-term results are not yet available. For a maxillary overdenture 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar provide high survival both for implants and overdenture. In edentulous mandibles, 2-implant overdentures provide excellent long-term success and survival, including patient satisfaction and improved oral functions. To further reduce the costs a single midline implant overdenture can be a promising option. In the maxilla, overdentures supported on 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar have demonstrated good functional results.
PURPOSE To present a literature review on implant overdentures after a brief survey of bone loss after extraction of all teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS Papers on alveolar bone loss and implant overdentures have been studied for a narrative review. RESULTS Bone loss of the alveolar process after tooth extraction occurs with great individual variation, impossible to predict at the time of extraction. The simplest way to prevent bone loss is to avoid extraction of all teeth. To keep a few teeth and use them or their roots for a tooth or root-supported overdenture substantially reduces bone loss. Jaws with implant-supported prostheses show less bone loss than jaws with conventional dentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures provide patients with better outcomes than do conventional dentures, regarding satisfaction, chewing ability and oral-health-related quality of life. There is no strong evidence for the superiority of one overdenture retention-system over the others regarding patient satisfaction, survival, peri-implant bone loss and relevant clinical factors. Mandibular single midline implant overdentures have shown promising results but long-term results are not yet available. For a maxillary overdenture 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar provide high survival both for implants and overdenture. CONCLUSION In edentulous mandibles, 2-implant overdentures provide excellent long-term success and survival, including patient satisfaction and improved oral functions. To further reduce the costs a single midline implant overdenture can be a promising option. In the maxilla, overdentures supported on 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar have demonstrated good functional results. PMID:25177466 2ff7e9595c
Comments