Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Dental implants are considered a predictable rehabilitation option for tooth extraction or missing teeth. The use of dental implants has evolved into a viable prosthetic alternative to conventional tooth-supported fixed prostheses or removable dentures, with advantages in terms of patient satisfaction and quality of life. Long-term studies have reported excellent success and survival rates for implants used in prosthetic rehabilitation. Benefits in terms of patient satisfaction and preservation of adjacent tooth structure are among the advantages of implant-supported restorations over prosthetic alternatives. However, dental implants can be subject to mechanical and biological complications. After the first year of function, marginal bone loss is minimal around most oral implants. Nevertheless, marginal bone loss or the onset of bacterial-related biological complications, such as mucositis and peri-implantitis, can occur. Despite the growing number of publications in the field of implant rehabilitation, to date only a few studies have investigated the outcomes of implant rehabilitation in a hospital setting characterized by patients with concomitant or previous systemic therapies and pathologies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the success of implant therapy, peri-implant marginal bone resorption (MBL), clinical parameters of peri-implant health, aesthetic parameters of rehabilitation, and patient-reported treatment outcomes in a sample of patients treated in a hospital setting.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implant-supported rehabilitation | Patients aged >18 years who require implant-supported rehabilitation |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Peri-implant marginal bone loss | Measurements were performed in millimeters using intraoral radiographs. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Implant survival rate | Rate of dental implants remaining in situ, measured as a proportion. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Implant success rate | Absence of biological and technical complications, expressed as a proportion. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Prosthesis survival rate | Rate of prostheses remaining in situ, expressed as a proportion. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Patients aged >18 years who require implant-supported rehabilitation
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlo Lajolo, MD, DDS | Contact | +390630154286 | carlo.lajolo@unicatt.it |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Carlo Lajolo | Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS | Principal Investigator |
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19885446 | Background | Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:186-217. | |
| 8270307 | Background | Gelb DA. Immediate implant surgery: three-year retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(4):388-99. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Prosthesis success rate | Absence of technical complications, expressed as a proportion. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Esthetic evaluation | Assessed using the PES/WES esthetic index. Scores range from 0 to 14 for the PES and from 0 to 10 for the WES, with higher scores indicating better esthetic outcomes. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Patient-Reported Outcome Measures | Recorded using a specifically designed questionnaire and measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Volumetric analysis | Assessed by superimposing the baseline volume with the volume recorded during follow-up using intraoral scans, measured in cubic millimeters. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Glycated hemoglobin level | Analysis of glycated hemoglobin levels recorded at baseline and during follow-up. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Diabetes | Analysis of the influence of diabetes during follow-up. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Influence of medications relevant to bone/tissue metabolism | Analysis of the influence of medications relevant to bone and tissue metabolism. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Osteoporosis | Analysis of influence of osteoporosis. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Cardiovascular disease | Analysis of influence of cardiovascuar disease. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| Complete Blood Count | Analysis of the influence of complete blood count parameters. | From Implant placement to 5 year follow up. |
| 9590942 | Background | Nir-Hadar O, Palmer M, Soskolne WA. Delayed immediate implants: alveolar bone changes during the healing period. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998 Feb;9(1):26-33. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090104.x. |
| 6809663 | Background | Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4. |
| Background | 3) Branemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration. In: BranemarkPI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, Rosen HM, eds. Tissue-IntegratedProstheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago:Quintessence Publishing Company, Inc; 1985:11-76. |
| 19040585 | Background | den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Dec;35(12):1073-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01330.x. |
| 26805651 | Background | Siadat H, Alikhasi M, Beyabanaki E. Interim Prosthesis Options for Dental Implants. J Prosthodont. 2017 Jun;26(4):331-338. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12421. Epub 2016 Jan 24. |