-
All Events
IAO-EAO-SIdP joint meeting 2024EAO-DGI joint meeting 202329th Annual Scientific CongressEAO Digital Days 2021EAO Digital Days 202028th Annual Scientific Congress27th Annual Scientific Congress26th Annual Scientific Congress25th Annual Scientific Congress24th Annual Scientific Congress23rd Annual Scientific Congress -
All Content TypesAbstractArticle ReviewePosterLearning moduleLearning QuizMatching SlidePDF DocumentWebcast
-
Sort ByRelevance
Background
The management of hypodontia can be challenging and may require multidisciplinary care for an optimal functional and aesthetic outcome. The number of missing teeth, the status and distribution of the remaining teeth and the size of the edentelous ridge will determine the restorative treatment. Implant rehabilitation is commonly used to replace developmentally missing teeth, and many hypodontia patients require ridge augmentation prior to implant placement; there is a distinct lack of scientific evidence on the survival of implants in hypodontia patients.
Aim/Hypothesis
The aim of this study is to determine the outcomes of patients with hypodontia rehabilitated orally with dental implants between the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB) and the Birmingham Dental Hospital (BDH). This study also aims to ascertain implant survival rates as well as the prosthodontic and surgical complication rates for those hypodontia patients who have undergone implant rehabilitation.
Material and Methods
A retrospective analysis of the clinical records of patients treated conjointly between the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and The Restorative Dentistry Department, University of Birmingham Dental Hospital was conducted. All hypodontia patients receiving implant treatment were identified from the Hypodontia Clinic database. Recorded clinical variables were collated and compared with reporting of adverse events with a follow up period of up to 6.7 years. Information was collected relating to: demography, gender, augmentation site, graft type, donor site, implant placement site, implant specifications, surgical complications and prosthodontics complications.
Results
67 patients aged 20 to 57 (average age 28) received 304 implants replacing 54.9% anterior and 45.1% posterior missing tooth units. 49% implants were placed in the maxilla and 51% implants were placed in the mandible. 36.5% implants were placed in non-grafted sites and 63.5% implants were placed in grafted sites. 3.2% implants encountered restorative complications after completion of the restorative treatment; 40% of these were soft tissue complications, such as gingival inflammation, and 60% were prosthodontic complications, such as screw loosening or ceramic fracture. 1 implant failed within the first year of function resulting in a survival rate of 99.6% within the observation period of up to 6.7 years. The follow up period was 0.1 to 6.7 years with a mean follow up period of 2.7 years. 39.4% implants were reviewed for 0 to 2 years, 57.6% implants were reviewed for 3 to 5 years and 3% implants were reviewed for 6 to 7 years.
Conclusions and clinical implications
There is paucity of evidence regarding implant and prosthodontic survival rates in hypodontia patients. Our data suggests 99.6% implant survival rate up to 6.7 years after placement which is higher compared with outcomes reported in the literature. Bone grafting prior to implant placement carries high success rates but the complication rate was higher in these cases; short and/or narrow implants may be considered as an alternative in cases that require vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation.
Background
The management of hypodontia can be challenging and may require multidisciplinary care for an optimal functional and aesthetic outcome. The number of missing teeth, the status and distribution of the remaining teeth and the size of the edentelous ridge will determine the restorative treatment. Implant rehabilitation is commonly used to replace developmentally missing teeth, and many hypodontia patients require ridge augmentation prior to implant placement; there is a distinct lack of scientific evidence on the survival of implants in hypodontia patients.
Aim/Hypothesis
The aim of this study is to determine the outcomes of patients with hypodontia rehabilitated orally with dental implants between the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB) and the Birmingham Dental Hospital (BDH). This study also aims to ascertain implant survival rates as well as the prosthodontic and surgical complication rates for those hypodontia patients who have undergone implant rehabilitation.
Material and Methods
A retrospective analysis of the clinical records of patients treated conjointly between the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and The Restorative Dentistry Department, University of Birmingham Dental Hospital was conducted. All hypodontia patients receiving implant treatment were identified from the Hypodontia Clinic database. Recorded clinical variables were collated and compared with reporting of adverse events with a follow up period of up to 6.7 years. Information was collected relating to: demography, gender, augmentation site, graft type, donor site, implant placement site, implant specifications, surgical complications and prosthodontics complications.
Results
67 patients aged 20 to 57 (average age 28) received 304 implants replacing 54.9% anterior and 45.1% posterior missing tooth units. 49% implants were placed in the maxilla and 51% implants were placed in the mandible. 36.5% implants were placed in non-grafted sites and 63.5% implants were placed in grafted sites. 3.2% implants encountered restorative complications after completion of the restorative treatment; 40% of these were soft tissue complications, such as gingival inflammation, and 60% were prosthodontic complications, such as screw loosening or ceramic fracture. 1 implant failed within the first year of function resulting in a survival rate of 99.6% within the observation period of up to 6.7 years. The follow up period was 0.1 to 6.7 years with a mean follow up period of 2.7 years. 39.4% implants were reviewed for 0 to 2 years, 57.6% implants were reviewed for 3 to 5 years and 3% implants were reviewed for 6 to 7 years.
Conclusions and clinical implications
There is paucity of evidence regarding implant and prosthodontic survival rates in hypodontia patients. Our data suggests 99.6% implant survival rate up to 6.7 years after placement which is higher compared with outcomes reported in the literature. Bone grafting prior to implant placement carries high success rates but the complication rate was higher in these cases; short and/or narrow implants may be considered as an alternative in cases that require vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation.
Background
The management of hypodontia can be challenging and may require multidisciplinary care for an optimal functional and aesthetic outcome. The number of missing teeth, the status and distribution of the remaining teeth and the size of the edentelous ridge will determine the restorative treatment. Implant rehabilitation is commonly used to replace developmentally missing teeth, and many hypodontia patients require ridge augmentation prior to implant placement; there is a distinct lack of scientific evidence on the survival of implants in hypodontia patients.
Aim/Hypothesis
The aim of this study is to determine the outcomes of patients with hypodontia rehabilitated orally with dental implants between the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB) and the Birmingham Dental Hospital (BDH). This study also aims to ascertain implant survival rates as well as the prosthodontic and surgical complication rates for those hypodontia patients who have undergone implant rehabilitation.
Material and Methods
A retrospective analysis of the clinical records of patients treated conjointly between the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and The Restorative Dentistry Department, University of Birmingham Dental Hospital was conducted. All hypodontia patients receiving implant treatment were identified from the Hypodontia Clinic database. Recorded clinical variables were collated and compared with reporting of adverse events with a follow up period of up to 6.7 years. Information was collected relating to: demography, gender, augmentation site, graft type, donor site, implant placement site, implant specifications, surgical complications and prosthodontics complications.
Results
67 patients aged 20 to 57 (average age 28) received 304 implants replacing 54.9% anterior and 45.1% posterior missing tooth units. 49% implants were placed in the maxilla and 51% implants were placed in the mandible. 36.5% implants were placed in non-grafted sites and 63.5% implants were placed in grafted sites. 3.2% implants encountered restorative complications after completion of the restorative treatment; 40% of these were soft tissue complications, such as gingival inflammation, and 60% were prosthodontic complications, such as screw loosening or ceramic fracture. 1 implant failed within the first year of function resulting in a survival rate of 99.6% within the observation period of up to 6.7 years. The follow up period was 0.1 to 6.7 years with a mean follow up period of 2.7 years. 39.4% implants were reviewed for 0 to 2 years, 57.6% implants were reviewed for 3 to 5 years and 3% implants were reviewed for 6 to 7 years.
Conclusions and clinical implications
There is paucity of evidence regarding implant and prosthodontic survival rates in hypodontia patients. Our data suggests 99.6% implant survival rate up to 6.7 years after placement which is higher compared with outcomes reported in the literature. Bone grafting prior to implant placement carries high success rates but the complication rate was higher in these cases; short and/or narrow implants may be considered as an alternative in cases that require vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation.
Background
The management of hypodontia can be challenging and may require multidisciplinary care for an optimal functional and aesthetic outcome. The number of missing teeth, the status and distribution of the remaining teeth and the size of the edentelous ridge will determine the restorative treatment. Implant rehabilitation is commonly used to replace developmentally missing teeth, and many hypodontia patients require ridge augmentation prior to implant placement; there is a distinct lack of scientific evidence on the survival of implants in hypodontia patients.
Aim/Hypothesis
The aim of this study is to determine the outcomes of patients with hypodontia rehabilitated orally with dental implants between the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB) and the Birmingham Dental Hospital (BDH). This study also aims to ascertain implant survival rates as well as the prosthodontic and surgical complication rates for those hypodontia patients who have undergone implant rehabilitation.
Material and Methods
A retrospective analysis of the clinical records of patients treated conjointly between the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and The Restorative Dentistry Department, University of Birmingham Dental Hospital was conducted. All hypodontia patients receiving implant treatment were identified from the Hypodontia Clinic database. Recorded clinical variables were collated and compared with reporting of adverse events with a follow up period of up to 6.7 years. Information was collected relating to: demography, gender, augmentation site, graft type, donor site, implant placement site, implant specifications, surgical complications and prosthodontics complications.
Results
67 patients aged 20 to 57 (average age 28) received 304 implants replacing 54.9% anterior and 45.1% posterior missing tooth units. 49% implants were placed in the maxilla and 51% implants were placed in the mandible. 36.5% implants were placed in non-grafted sites and 63.5% implants were placed in grafted sites. 3.2% implants encountered restorative complications after completion of the restorative treatment; 40% of these were soft tissue complications, such as gingival inflammation, and 60% were prosthodontic complications, such as screw loosening or ceramic fracture. 1 implant failed within the first year of function resulting in a survival rate of 99.6% within the observation period of up to 6.7 years. The follow up period was 0.1 to 6.7 years with a mean follow up period of 2.7 years. 39.4% implants were reviewed for 0 to 2 years, 57.6% implants were reviewed for 3 to 5 years and 3% implants were reviewed for 6 to 7 years.
Conclusions and clinical implications
There is paucity of evidence regarding implant and prosthodontic survival rates in hypodontia patients. Our data suggests 99.6% implant survival rate up to 6.7 years after placement which is higher compared with outcomes reported in the literature. Bone grafting prior to implant placement carries high success rates but the complication rate was higher in these cases; short and/or narrow implants may be considered as an alternative in cases that require vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation.