1 year of loading. Within the limits of this study, GBR for a small buccal bone defect seems to be a reliable technique with good esthetics and patient-reported outcomes.PURPOSE To provide a long-term comparison of metal-acrylic and zirconia implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients treated with a metal-acrylic or zirconia fixed implant prosthesis with a minimum 5-year follow-up were included. All complications were registered, along with events such as peri-implantitis and implant failure. Survival and all costs associated with the prostheses were assessed to provide an overall evaluation of each type of fixed implant prosthesis protocol. RESULTS Seventy-four rehabilitated arches (43 metal-acrylic, 31 zirconia, mean follow-up 8.7 ± 3.37 years) were included. Delayed complications accompanied the metal-acrylic prostheses more frequently. In both groups, single tooth chipping/fracture was the most prominent minor complication, and incidence of multiple teeth and framework fracture was the most frequent major complication. Zirconia fixed implant prostheses demonstrated higher prosthetic survival rates than the metal-acrylic prostheses (93.7% ± 5.5% at 5 years vs 83.0% ± 11.1%). No difference was observed for peri-implantitis or implant failure. The initial cost for zirconia prosthesis fabrication was significantly higher than metal-acrylic hybrids (an estimated difference of $7,829 [P less then .001]); however, due to reduced complication rates for the zirconia fixed implant prosthesis, maintenance and treatment for complications did not greatly differ between groups. CONCLUSION Within the limitations, zirconia fixed implant prostheses presented higher initial costs than metal-acrylic hybrids, however, with satisfactory outcomes, reduction of overall complications, and superior survival rates.PURPOSE Patients who have a vertical growth pattern are more prone to complete alveolar bone growth later and run a higher risk for inhibition of growth and infraposition after implants have been placed. Moreover, it has been suggested for the same category of patients that craniofacial height may influence the alveolar bone morphology of the anterior maxilla during growth. Hence, it is important to identify such patients early when considering implant treatment in young patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the height and width of the alveolar bone in the anterior maxilla in subjects with different craniofacial heights to assess if there is a relation between craniofacial height and the dimensions of the alveolar bone in the anterior part of the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS Measurements on cephalograms and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the maxilla from 180 fully dentate subjects were analyzed and categorized into three angle groups based on the craniofacial height low-, noied out early in young patients who are still growing when various treatment options can still be considered.PURPOSE To assess longitudinal volumetric changes during immediate implant placement with simultaneous intentional retention of the buccal aspect of the root. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study assessed 10 cases drawn from a previously reported cohort that had study casts available pretreatment and at least 2 years after periodontal ligament (PDL)-mediated immediate implant placement. Gypsum casts were scanned using a laser scanner and converted into digital three-dimensional rendered files. The digital casts were superimposed, and semi-automated subtractive assessment was performed via specialized software. RESULTS Data from 10 patients with a minimum of 3 years follow-up (median follow-up time 42 months) were analyzed. Each person contributed one implant site in this study. All implants successfully maintained osseointegration during the follow-up period and demonstrated optimal soft tissue stability. Changes during the observation period ranged from 0.19 mm (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.10 to 0.28) in the midfacial region 6 mm apical to the mucosal zenith to -0.06 mm (95% CI -0.14 to 0.02) at 5 mm apical to the base of the distal papilla. All changes were noninferior to pre-extraction baseline measurements based on a 0.5-mm noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION The intentional retention of the buccal aspect of the root with its periodontal apparatus during immediate implant placement led to optimal soft tissue dimensional stability in the esthetic zone. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/azd9291.html This technique holds promise for clinical application, and further controlled clinical studies are warranted to determine the comparative clinical benefit from the use of this procedure.Zygomatic-related implant rehabilitation differs from traditional implant treatment in biomechanics, clinical procedures, outcomes, and eventual complications such as soft tissue incompetence or recession that may lead to recurrent sinus/soft tissue complications. The extreme maxillary atrophy that indicates the use of zygomatic implants prevents use of conventional criteria to describe implant success/failure. Currently, results and complications of zygomatic implants reported in the literature are inconsistent and lack a standardized systematic review. Moreover, protocols for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic implants have been in continuous evolution. The current zygomatic approach is relatively new, especially if the head of the zygomatic implant is located in an extramaxillary area with interrupted alveolar bone around its perimeter. Specific criteria to describe success/survival of zygomatic implants are necessary, both to write and to read scientific literature related to zygomatic implant-based oral rehabilitations. The aim of this article was to review the criteria of success used for traditional and zygomatic implants and to propose a revisited Zygomatic Success Code describing specific criteria to score the outcome of a rehabilitation anchored on zygomatic implants. The ORIS acronym is used to name four specific criteria to systematically describe the outcome of zygomatic implant rehabilitation offset measurement as evaluation of prosthetic positioning; rhino-sinus status report based on a comparison of presurgical and postsurgical cone beam computed tomography in addition to a clinical questionnaire; infection permanence as evaluation of soft tissue status; and stability report, accepting as success some mobility until dis-osseointegration signs appear. Based on these criteria, the assessment of five possible conditions when evaluating zygomatic implants is possible.