CAMLOG Summary Edentulous patients

Edentulous patients – an overview of different forms of treatment on CAMLOG ® implants Science / Clinical Research implants. With two implants, a prefabricated round bar was used for retention, and with four implants, either several prefabricated bars were used or one milled bar. The reten- tion methods had no impact on treatment successes and stability of the peri-implant tissue. Patient satisfaction was also comparable in all groups. However, prosthetic compli- cations were less frequent for a milled bar on four implants (p<0.01). Krennmair et al. (2008) also found similar results. In a ran- domized prospective study with 51 patients, they showed that a milled bar on four interforaminal CAMLOG ® implants leads to fewer technical complications than the use of seve- ral round bars. Their implant survival rates were 100% over five years [7]. A retrospective study with 67 edentulous patients also confirms these results [8]. The patients received implant- supported overdentures on milled bars. Over a period of five years on average, the implant survival rates were 99%. High implant survival rates also for conditionally removable bridges: Treatments in edentulous maxillas and mandibles with conditionally removable bridges on CAMLOG ® implants were studied by a working group in Berlin [9, 10]. Forty patients were included in the retrospec- tive study over five years. They received a total of 55 bridges on 353 implants. On average, seven implants were placed in the maxilla, six in the mandible. For retention, galvano elements were used, which, according to the authors, com- bine the benefits of screwed fixation and cementation. Af- ter an average observation period of slightly more than four years, there were cumulative implant survival rates of 99%. The implant-supported bridges with galvano elements pro- ved clinically successful and could be reliably removed at the schedules times. The use of an electroformed substruc- ture allowed long-term retention, while the suprastructure could be removed again at any time, explain Xiang et al. [9, 10]. High patient satisfaction and treatment successes of implant-supported prostheses in the maxilla and man- dible: In the years 1999 to 2005, Nelson et al. (2006) treat- ed 119 edentulous patients with 150 implant-supported galvano bar prostheses on five to six implants in the maxilla and four in the mandible on average [11]. For the retro- spective study 118 prostheses could be evaluated after an average period of 35 months. Only seven of 568 implants were lost, i.e., success rates of 99%. The prosthetic seats were stable in 93%, only 7% showed slight movements during unilateral loads. 85% experienced no mechanical complications. Patient satisfaction was 97%. Anterior extension bar or posterior bars? In a retro- spective study, Krennmair et al. (2008) compared over- dentures in the maxilla on implants in the anterior region (four implants) and in the posterior regions (six implants after augmentation) [12, 13]. After 42.1 months on ave- rage, 34 patients with 179 implants were examined. The cumulative implant survival rates were 98%. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in that. The authors concluded that with good planning, both concepts allow high implant survival rates and excellent peri-implant conditions. Milled bars vs. telescopic crown on four implants – three years of data: A very high rate of implant treatment successes (100% over 3 years) was also observed in a randomized prospective study with 51 edentulous patients [5]. The patients received mandibular overdentures on four CAMLOG ® implants retained with milled bars or telescopic crowns. The study showed that peri-implant conditions were stable for both retention techniques. Prosthetic follow- ups were also comparable in both groups. Indeed, more plaque and tartar were observed with the bar con- structions. However, the prosthetic treatment showed slight benefits with this technique. The authors concluded, that both retention methods are successful and that the clinician should choose the technique he/she is most familiar with [5]. Peters F, Wanner H. Zahnlose Patienten – ein Überblick über verschiedene Versorgungsformen auf CAMLOG ® Implantaten. Logo 2011;24:8-10