The goals of this research are: (1) to compare the survival and prosthetic success of metal-ceramic 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; (2) to evaluate the influence of several risk factors on the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). A total of 68 patients with posterior short edentulous spaces (mean age 61.00 ± 1.325 years), were divided into two groups: 3-unit tooth-supported FPDs (40 patients; 52 FPD; mean follow-up 10.27 ± 0.496 years) and 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (28 patients; 32 FPD; mean follow-up 8.656 ± 0.718 years). Pearson-chi tests were used to highlight the risk factors for the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported FPDs and multivariate analysis was used to determine significant risk predictors for the prosthetic success of the tooth-supported FPDs. The survival rates of 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs were 100% and 87.5%, respectively, while the prosthetic success was 69.25% and 68.75%, respectively. The prosthetic success of tooth-supported FPDs was significantly higher for patients older than 60 years (83.3%) vs. 40–60 years old (57.1%) (p = 0.041). Periodontal disease history decreased the prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs when compared with the absence of periodontal history (45.5% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.001; 33.3% vs. 90%, p = 0.002). The prosthetic success of 3-unit tooth- vs. implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene in our study. In conclusion, similar rates of prosthetic success were recorded for both types of FPDs. In our study, prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene; however, history of periodontal disease is a significant negative predictor of success in both groups when compared with patients without periodontal history.

The goals of this research were to determine the influence of several factors on implants’ biological and technical complications in posterior fixed implant prosthetic therapy. Materials and methods: The study group consisted of 67 edentulous patients (mean age: 63.88 ± 11.709 yrs; 20 males, 47 females) with implant prosthetic therapy for posterior edentulism. A total of 76 implant-supported fixed partial dentures (IP-FPDs) and 178 implants were assessed using clinical and paraclinical assessments. Risk factors for biological complications (peri-implantitis) and technical complications were determined by using the Pearson Chi-squared test and multivariate analysis. Results: The implant success (the absence of biological and mechanical/technical complications) was 66.30%. The prevalence of biological complications was 13.5%. The prevalence of technical complications was 28.70%. Variables that were associated with a higher risk of peri-implantitis were poor oral hygiene and bruxism. In univariate analysis, poor oral hygiene increased the risk of peri-implantitis 5.778 times and bruxism 5.875 times. Variables that were associated with a higher risk of mechanical/technical complications were age group > 60 yrs, smoking, history of periodontal disease, and bruxism. In univariate analysis, the risk of technical complications increased 4.14 times for patients in the age group > 60 years (vs. age group 40–60 years) and 20.5 times for patients with bruxism. Bruxism and smoking were significant predictors of mechanical/technical complications in the multivariate model. Conclusions: In univariate models, patients with poor oral hygiene and bruxism have an increased risk of peri-implantitis. In multivariate models, we did not identify significant predictors of peri-implantitis. Age group > 60 yrs, smoking, history of periodontal disease, bone grafting, and bruxism are risk factors for the increase in the mechanical/technical complication rate. In the multivariate model, smoking and bruxism are significant predictors of the mechanical/technical complications.

Considered as one of the most common traumatic injuries of the maxillofacial region, mandibular fractures remain among the complex causes of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). Due to the complexity of the temporomandibular joint, the management of TMDs represents a challenge in real-life practice; although many treatment modalities have already been proposed, ranging from conservative options to open surgical procedures, a consensus is still lacking in many aspects. Furthermore, despite continuous improvement of the management of mandible fractures, the duration of immobilization and temporary disability is not reduced, and the incidence of complications remains high. The aim of the present study is to (i) review anatomophysiological components of temporomandibular joint; (ii) review concepts of temporomandibular joint fractures; and (iii) describe methods of the recovery of the temporomandibular joint after mandibular fracture immobilization.

This study aimed to test whether alveolar bone gain (width and osteodensity) in mandible implant sites, augmented by the screw-guided bone regeneration (S-GBR) technique and the porcine-derived xenograft, differ from that of the mandible sites reconstructed with S-GBR and the bovine-derived xenograft. Materials and method. A total of 42 edentulous patients (mean age 54.60 ± 14.90) were randomly divided into a test group (S-GBR + porcine-derived xenograft) and a control group (S-GBR + bovine-derived xenograft). The immediate implants were placed simultaneously with grafting procedures. The implant site width was measured before teeth extractions and 6 months after the augmentation procedures. Osteodensity bone values were evaluated immediately after the implant placement and at 6 months follow-up. The CBCT sections and Sidexis XG/DVT (Densply/Sirona) software were used to evaluate the changes of the width in the augmented alveolar bone. The NNT Viewer/CT (NewTom) software was used to record the osteodensity changes. Statistical comparisons between the groups were performed by the Mann–Whitney and t-tests (significance level p < 0.05). Results. The mean values of the bone gain at 6 months follow-up (control group vs. test group) were as follows: width (4.107 mm vs. 4.1624 mm); osteodensity (276.83 HU vs. 254.24 HU). The statistical analysis found the absence of statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the bone gain (width and osteodensity) at 6 months after the augmentation and the immediate implant placement. Conclusions. The horizontal bone and osteodensity gains in the porcine-derived group were similar and without significant statistical differences when compared with the implant sites reconstructed with the bovine-derived xenografts group at 6 months postoperatively. The reconstruction of the mandibular alveolar bone by the S-GBR technique and the porcine-derived xenografts is a valid bone regeneration strategy for edentulous patients with moderate/severe horizontal resorption of the mandibular alveolar bone.

Aim: Study aimed to test whether implants inserted in posterior mandible sites augmented with screw-guided bone regeneration (S-GBR) technique differ from implants placed in non-grafted sites regarding the success and survival rate. Materials and Methods: 20 edentulous patients (mean age 59.45 ± 15.220) were divided in a test group (S-GBR) (immediate implants placed simultaneously with grafting procedures) and control group (implants placed in naturally healed sites). Primary outcomes (implants success; implants survival) and secondary outcomes (clinical parameters of soft tissues: mPI; mGI; probing depth; keratinized mucosa; marginal-bone-level) were evaluated at 24-months follow-up. Results: Plaque levels were higher (p = 0.046) in S-GBR group (0.97 ± 0.882 mm) when compared with control (0.66 ± 0.695 mm). Keratinized mucosa width was higher in S-GBR group (4.13 ± 1.033 mm) than control (3.34 ± 0.821 mm) (p = 0.000) Probing depth (PD) width was higher in S-GBR group (3.50 ± 1.372 mm) than control (2.56 ± 1.332 mm) (p = 0.000). mGI was higher among implants placed in S-GBR group (0.90 ± 1.020 mm) than control (0.56 ± 0.794 mm) (p = 0.061). The difference between the average bone loss (MBL) for implants placed in grafted sites (Group S-GBR: 2.20 ± 1.867 mm) and for those placed in naturally healed sites (Group B: 1.09 ± 1.678 mm) was statistically significant (p = 0.000). The overall implant success rate after 24-month follow-up was 76.7% in S-GBR group and 90.6% in control group (p = 0.001). The survival rate after 24-month follow-up was 86.7% in S-GBR group and 93.8% in control group (p = 0.182). The reconstruction of the alveolar bone using S-GBR technique and immediate implant placement is a valid guided bone regeneration strategy for mandibular alveolar bone with severe horizontal resorption. The choice of S-GBR technique should be based on specific indications as implants placed in grafted sites recorded worse marginal success rate, survival rate and bone resorption than those placed in non-grafted sites.