Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess implant survival and complications rate of modern subperiosteal implants (CAD designed and additively manufactured).
Methods: A systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: "In patients with bone atrophy (P), do additively manufactured subperiosteal implants (I), compared to subperiosteal implants manufactured following traditional approaches (c), present satisfactory implant survival and complication rates (O)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023424211). Included articles quality was assessed using the "NIH quality assessment tools".
Results: Thirteen articles were finally selected (5 cohort studies and 8 case series), including 227 patients (121 female / 106 male; weighted mean age 62.4 years) and 227 implants. After a weighted mean follow-up time of 21.4 months, 97.8% of implants were in function (5 failures reported), 58 implants (25.6%) presented partial exposure, 12 patients (5.3%) suffered soft tissue or persistent infection. Fracture of the interim prosthesis was reported in 8 of the155 patients (5.2%) in which the use of a provisional prosthesis was reported. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, modern additively manufactured subperiosteal implants presented a good survival in the short-time, but a noticeable number of soft-tissue related complications were reported. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical behavior in the medium- and long-term.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10844163 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-024-00521-6 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Management of adverse effects following additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implantation in the maxilla.
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg
December 2024
Face Ahead® Surgicenter, Belgium and Ziekenhuis aan de Stroom, Campus GZA, B-2018, Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address:
Objective: This expert opinion presents provisional guidelines for addressing complications associated with Additively Manufactured Subperiosteal Jaw Implants (AMSJI®) in patients with severe maxillary atrophy. AMSJI®'s custom design, supported by finite element analysis (FEA), allows precise placement that avoids critical anatomical structures and minimizes complications relative to alternative solutions.
Materials And Methods: Data were gathered through firsthand experiences, direct communications, two structured surveys and insights from international workgroup meetings.
Key Clinical Message: Digital technology significantly enhances subperiosteal implantology by enabling precise presurgical planning based on CBCT scans. This technology reduces patient trauma and ensures optimal implant fit, presenting a promising alternative to traditional analogue methods.
Abstract: In the last decades, significant progress has been made in oral implantology, particularly with endosseous implants, primarily due to advancements brought about by the digital revolution.
Avoiding Unwanted Exposure of Subperiosteal Implants in the Atrophic Maxilla: Technical Note.
J Craniofac Surg
November 2024
Postgraduate Program in Implant Dentistry and Dental Rehabilitation, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Temuco.
The use of subperiosteal implants for the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae has taken attention recently as a validated option in the treatment of severe atrophy. The systems have been improved by technological advancements and the analysis of variables affecting their prognosis. However, one of the most frequent issues to resolve is the unwanted exposure of a portion of the metal mesh close to the abutment and prosthetic connections, which can result in infections, hygiene problems, and, in some instances, complete failure.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFLong-Term Survival of Subperiosteal Implants: Meta-Analysis and Current Status of Subperiosteal Implants for Dental Rehabilitation.
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am
February 2025
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover D-30625, Germany.
Subperiosteal implants have experienced fluctuating popularity since their inception. Initially introduced in the mid-20th century, they were overshadowed by the development and success of endosteal implants, which are now the standard in dental implantology. Modern subperiosteal implants are typically custom-made using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technologies, which ensure a precise fit to the patient's bone anatomy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMaxillary rehabilitation after zygomatic implant sequelae using custom subperiosteal implants: A case study.
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg
November 2024
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculdade Patos de Minas, Brasília-DF, Brazil; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Training Program, Foundation of Dentistry - Fundecto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo-SP, Brazil. Electronic address:
Despite technological advancements, maxillary rehabilitation remains a significant challenge in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. This paper presents the case of a patient who underwent multiple previous procedures for prosthetic rehabilitation without achieving the desired results. The most recent intervention, which resulted in some sequelae, involved the placement of bilateral zygomatic implants.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!