The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate and compare implant survival, marginal bone loss, and clinical and prosthetic complications in healthy patients and patients with type I diabetes undergoing full arch implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. A total of 47 patients needing total fixed rehabilitation of one or both arches were enrolled for this study. Based on the absence of any systemic diseases (Group A) or the presence of type I diabetes (Group B), the sample was divided into two groups. According to the grade of bone atrophy in the posterior region, patients received full arch rehabilitation (of one or both jaws) with 6 axial implants or, if the residual posterior bone height was insufficient, All-on-Four rehabilitation and a total 236 dental implants were placed. Follow-up visits were performed 1 week after surgery, at 3 and 6 months and then once a year for the next 10 years. No statistically significant differences between groups were recorded about implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, or clinical and prosthetic complications. However, concerning complications, post-surgical bleeding and wound infection were recorded in Group A more than in Group B. In cases of compensated diabetes compensation, implant placement could be considered a safe procedure.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications of implants placed through sinus floor elevation and tilted implants engaged in basal bone to bypass the maxillary sinus. Sixty patients were enrolled for this study. According to the residual bone height of the posterior maxilla, the sample was divided into three groups of 20 patients: Group A (lateral sinus floor elevation), Group B (transcrestal sinus floor elevation), and Group C (tilted implants employed to bypass the sinus floor). Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at three and six months, and then once a year for the next 4 years. The outcomes were the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications. Although Groups A, B, and C demonstrated implant survival rates of 83.3%, 86.7%, and 98.3%, respectively, the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were also not found concerning marginal bone loss, as recorded by intra-oral X-ray measurements during follow-up examinations. Regarding complications, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis. To reduce possible surgical risks, implant placement in basal bone could be preferred.

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the marginal bone loss between two different categories of implants (Winsix, Biosafin, Ancona, Italy) having the same diameter and belonging to the Torque Type^® (TT^®) line, in the internal hexagon version (TTi, Group A) and in the external hexagon configuration (TTx, Group B). Patients with one or more straight implants (insertion parallel to the occlusal plane) in the molar and premolar regions in association with tooth extraction at least 4 months prior to implant insertion, who have a fixture diameter of 3.8 mm, who followed up for at least 6 years, and whose radiographic records were available were enrolled in this study. Depending on implant connections (externally or internally), the sample was divided into groups A and B. For externally connected implants (66), the marginal resorption was 1.1 ± 0.17 mm. The subgroup of single and bridge implants showed no statistically significant differences with a marginal bone resorption of 1.07 ± 0.15 mm and 1.1 ± 0.17 mm, respectively. Internally connected implants (69) showed an overall marginal resorption of 0.91 ± 0.17 mm, while the subgroup of single and bridge implants showed resorption of 0.90 ± 0.19 mm and 0.90 ± 0.17 mm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences. According to the obtained results, internally connected implants showed less marginal bone resorption than externally connected implants.

The aim of this comparative retrospective clinical study was to assess the effect of age on immediate loaded full-arch mandibular rehabilitation in younger vs. elderly patients. Patients with an age between 45 and 60 years (younger group, YG) or with an age more or equal to 75 years (older group, OG), requiring a mandibular full-arch rehabilitation were scheduled for the present study. Implant and prosthetic failure, biological and prosthetic complications, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes were recorded until a 7-year follow-up. Sixty-six patients were included in the study; a total of 264 implants were placed and, in total, 66 “all-on-four” rehabilitations were delivered. In total, 33 patients were scheduled in the YG and 33 patients in the OG. At the 7-year follow-up, an overall implant failure rate of 1.14% was reported. Moreover, at the 7-year radiographic evaluation, peri-implant crestal bone loss averaged 1.12 ± 0.91 mm for the YG and 1.04 ± 1.01 mm for the OG. No statistically significant differences were found between the YG and OG except for the rate of peri-implantitis, which was statistically higher in the YG. The present study reported that immediate fixed mandibular full-arch rehabilitation is a viable procedure in elderly people of equal or more than 75 years of age.

Aim: The rising average age increases edentulous cases, demanding more implant–prosthetic rehabilitation, with cardiovascular diseases being significant factors. This study compared healthy patients (CG = Control Group) and those with cardiovascular disease (TG = Test Group) for implant survival, Marginal Bone Loss (MBL), peri-implant tissue level parameters as Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR), Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding on Probing (BoP) Peri-implant Probing Depth (PPD), and surgical complications. Smoking impact on both groups and medication influence in the TG were secondary outcomes. Patients underwent full-arch implant prosthetic rehabilitation. Methods: Implant survival rate, MBL, and surgical complications were recorded during the monitoring period (7 years), while peri-implant parameters were assessed at the end of the observational time. A total of 26 and 28 CG and TG patients were recruited, respectively. Results: A total of 128 implants were placed in CG, while 142 in the TG. Implant survival and MBL showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, peri-implant parameters were more unfavorable in TG. The only significant surgical complication was higher bleeding rates in the TG (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Cardiovascular patients showed similar implant survival and MBL but had adverse peri-implant parameters and increased bleeding rates. Higher smoking levels may relate to unfavorable implant outcomes. Further investigation is needed on drug impact with larger samples.

Aim: the aim of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate clinically and radiographically full-arch implant prosthetic rehabilitations supported by six axial implants or four implants placed according to the All-on-Four protocol. Materials and methods: Patients in need of immediately loaded full-arch implant prosthetic rehabilitations of one or both arches were considered. Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at 3 and 6 months and then once a year for the next 6 years to record implant survival, peri-implant parameters, marginal bone loss, bone cortical thickness and possible muscular, articular and prosthetic complications. A satisfaction evaluation questionnaire was also made available to all patients at the end of the follow-up period. Results: A total of 30 patients with total edentulism of one or both arches or need for avulsion of residual impaired teeth were enrolled for this study and underwent implant prosthetic rehabilitation on four or six implants. The overall implant survival rate at the six-year follow-up was 98.09%. Statistical analysis revealed a significant association between implant site and higher plaque and bleeding index in the posterior site. The extent of keratinized tissue was statistically superior in anteriorly located implants. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the values of bone-marginal levels as a function of time. The vestibular and palatal/lingual bone cortices were preserved, with an increasing trend in the apical direction. Regarding muscular and articular complications, the results of this study showed statistically significant differences between the mean values recorded in male and female subjects, while the most frequently encountered problems during the clinical evaluation were the presence of joint clicks and pain in the masseter muscles. Two of the patients examined showed problems with mandibular latero-deviation and prosthetic fracture. Conclusion: within the limitations of the present study, immediate implant-retained prosthetic rehabilitations supported by six axial implants or four fixtures placed according to the All-on-Four method could represent a valid therapeutic alternative to provide edentulous patients with restoration of masticatory function and aesthetics and promote their acceptance.