Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(04): 1179-1186
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787961
Case Report

Five- and 18-Year Outcome of Two Cases with Full-Arch Rehabilitations Ad modum All-on-4 in the Presence of Challenging Conditions

Miguel de Araújo Nobre 
1   Department of Research, Development and Education, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Diogo Santos
2   Department of Oral Surgery, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Ana Ferro
2   Department of Oral Surgery, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Armando Lopes
2   Department of Oral Surgery, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Carolina Jorge Antunes
1   Department of Research, Development and Education, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Inês Vitor
1   Department of Research, Development and Education, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Placing implants in fresh postextraction sites is a borderline rehabilitation procedure. The purpose of this report is to describe the pre-, per-, and postoperative procedures for maintaining long-term stability of two full-arch rehabilitations through the All-on-4 protocol, performed in the presence of challenging conditions. Two patients were referred for full-arch rehabilitation with immediate function, with both patients presenting infection in the jaws: patient 1 with an implant (position #45) inserted in a cystic cavity; patient 2 with one implant (position #24) inserted transsinus after the removal of a cyst on the base of the maxillary sinus and another implant (position #15) inserted with a dehiscence. Both patients received a preoperative dental hygiene appointment, a regenerative surgical protocol, and were enrolled in a postoperative maintenance protocol. After surgery a provisional prosthesis was provided ensuring immediate function, and 6 months after surgery, the final prosthesis was delivered. During the follow-up appointments (final follow-up at 5 and 18 years), the implants were stable, and no infection was observed for both patients. The present case report describes two full-arch rehabilitations in immediate function, supported by dental implants inserted in the presence of challenging conditions that do not represent the norm, rather are highly demanding for the clinical team, warranting caution in the interpretation of the results.

Keywords

dental implants - immediate function - full-arch - All-on-4 - infection - dehiscence - cyst

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this case report.




Publication History

Article published online:
23 July 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43 (01) 16-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lang NP, Pun L, Lau KY, Li KY, Wong MC. A systematic review on survival and success rates of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets after at least 1 year. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 05) 39-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantology 2010; 3 (03) 189-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 de Oliveira-Neto OB, Lemos CA, Barbosa FT, de Sousa-Rodrigues CF, Camello de Lima FJ. Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019; 24 (04) e518-e528
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vanden Bogaerde L, Rangert B, Wendelhag I. Immediate/early function of Brånemark System TiUnite implants in fresh extraction sockets in maxillae and posterior mandibles: an 18-month prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7 (Suppl. 01) S121-S130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Rangert B. Implants placed in immediate function in periodontally compromised sites: a five-year retrospective and one-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97 (06) S86-S95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M, Moscowchi A. Immediate implant placement in compromised sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 130 (03) 307-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kaur J, Chahal GS, Grover V, Bansal D, Jain A. Immediate implant placement in periodontally infected sites- a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Acad Periodontol 2021; 23 (02) 115-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yu W, Luo D, Yang J, Yuan M, Yang Y, Gao Y. Immediate implant placement for chronic peri-apical periodontitis in the molar region: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2024; 53 (03) 223-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Crippa R, Aiuto R, Dioguardi M. et al. Immediate dental implant placement in post-extraction-infected sites decontaminated with Er,Cr:YSGG laser: a retrospective cohort study. Odontology 2023; 111 (01) 255-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kakar A, Kakar K, Leventis MD, Jain G. Immediate implant placement in infected sockets: a consecutive cohort study. J Lasers Med Sci 2020; 11 (02) 167-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Çolak S, Demirsoy MS. Retrospective analysis of dental implants immediately placed in extraction sockets with periapical pathology: immediate implant placement in infected areas. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23 (01) 304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Muñoz-Cámara D, Gilbel-Del Águila O, Pardo-Zamora G, Camacho-Alonso F. Immediate post-extraction implants placed in acute periapical infected sites with immediate prosthetic provisionalization: a 1-year prospective cohort study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2020; 25 (06) e720-e727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Anitua E, Piñas L, Alkhraisat MH. Long-term outcomes of immediate implant placement into infected sockets in association with immediate loading: a retrospective cohort study. J Periodontol 2016; 87 (10) 1135-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Maló P, Nobre MdeA, Lopes A. Immediate rehabilitation of completely edentulous arches with a four-implant prosthesis concept in difficult conditions: an open cohort study with a mean follow-up of 2 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (05) 1177-1190
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mello CC, Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Dos Santos DM, Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP. Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 46 (09) 1162-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2014; 42 (12) 1509-1527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Marconcini S, Barone A, Gelpi F, Briguglio F, Covani U. Immediate implant placement in infected sites: a case series. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (02) 196-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jofre J, Valenzuela D, Quintana P, Asenjo-Lobos C. Protocol for immediate implant replacement of infected teeth. Implant Dent 2012; 21 (04) 287-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nelson S, Thomas G. Bacterial persistence in dentoalveolar bone following extraction: a microbiological study and implications for dental implant treatment. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12 (04) 306-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Waasdorp JA, Evian CI, Mandracchia M. Immediate placement of implants into infected sites: a systematic review of the literature. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (06) 801-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Siegenthaler DW, Jung RE, Holderegger C, Roos M, Hämmerle CH. Replacement of teeth exhibiting periapical pathology by immediate implants: a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (06) 727-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Saijeva A, Juodzbalys G. Immediate implant placement in non-infected sockets versus infected sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2020; 11 (02) e1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zuffetti F, Capelli M, Galli F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Post-extraction implant placement into infected versus non-infected sites: a multicenter retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (05) 833-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kligman S, Ren Z, Chung CH. et al. The impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration and biofilm formation. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (08) 1641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chen H, Zhang G, Weigl P, Gu X. Immediate placement of dental implants into infected versus noninfected sites in the esthetic zone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (05) 658-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Nunes M. The All-on-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: a longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (04) 538-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Botto J. The All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (04) 565-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7 (Suppl. 01) S88-S94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5 (Suppl. 01) 2-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. eds. Tissue-Integrated Prosthesis. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, London, Berlin, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc.; 1985: 199-208
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch Jr E, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987; 2 (04) 145-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chrcanovic BR, Martins MD, Wennerberg A. Immediate placement of implants into infected sites: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (Suppl. 01) e1-e16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Eini E, Yousefimanesh H, Ashtiani AH, Saki-Malehi A, Olapour A, Rahim F. Comparing success of immediate versus delay loading of implants in fresh sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 26 (02) 185-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Antunes E. The 10 year outcomes of implants inserted with dehiscence or fenestrations in the rehabilitation of completely edentulous jaws with the All-on-4 concept. J Clin Med 2022; 11 (07) 1939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bidra AS, Daubert DM, Garcia LT. et al. A systematic review of recall regimen and maintenance regimen of patients with dental restorations. part 2: implant-borne restorations. J Prosthodont 2016; 25 (Suppl. 01) S16-S31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lin CY, Chen Z, Pan WL, Wang HL. The effect of supportive care in preventing peri-implant diseases and implant loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30 (08) 714-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Quirynen M, De Soete M, van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13 (01) 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Jovanovic SA. Peri-implant tissue response to pathological insults. Adv Dent Res 1999; 13: 82-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bressan E, Guazzo R, Tomasi C. et al. Influence of soft tissue thickness on marginal bone level around dental implants: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; 34 (05) 405-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Díaz-Sánchez M, Soto-Peñaloza D, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Influence of supracrestal tissue attachment thickness on radiographic bone level around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res 2019; 54 (06) 573-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lang NP, Tonetti MS. Periodontal risk assessment (PRA) for patients in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Oral Health Prev Dent 2003; 1 (01) 7-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar