Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review.
Custom-made implants
Implant survival
Maxillary atrophy
Subperiosteal implants
Journal
International journal of implant dentistry
ISSN: 2198-4034
Titre abrégé: Int J Implant Dent
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101676532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Feb 2024
05 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
12
06
2023
accepted:
11
01
2024
medline:
5
2
2024
pubmed:
5
2
2024
entrez:
5
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess implant survival and complications rate of modern subperiosteal implants (CAD designed and additively manufactured). 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". 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38315326
doi: 10.1186/s40729-024-00521-6
pii: 10.1186/s40729-024-00521-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4Subventions
Organisme : Horizon 2020 Framework Program
ID : 953134
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dahl G. Om mojligheten for inplantation i ka¨ken av metallskelett som bas eller retention för fasta eller avtagbaraproteser. Odontol Tidskr. 1943;51:440–9.
Goldberg NI, Gershkoff A. The implant lower denture. Dent Dig. 1949;55:490–5.
pubmed: 15395224
Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol. 2000;2017(73):7–21.
Moore DJ, Hansen PA. A descriptive 18-year retrospective review of subperiosteal implants for patients with severely atrophied edentulous mandibles. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(2):145–50.
pubmed: 15295323
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.018
Gore D, Frazer RQ, Kovarik RE, Yepes JE. Vitallium. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(6):673–86.
pubmed: 16393134
doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v15.i6.90
Schou S, Pallesen L, Hjørting-Hansen E, Pedersen CS, Fibaek B. A 41-year history of a mandibular subperiosteal implant. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(2):171–8.
pubmed: 11168208
Yanase RT, Bodine RL, Tom JF, White SN. The mandibular subperiosteal implant denture: a prospective survival study. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(4):369–74.
pubmed: 8196000
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90096-5
Bodine RL, Yanase RT, Bodine A. Forty years of experience with subperiosteal implant dentures in 41 edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75(1):33–44.
pubmed: 8850449
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90414-X
Golec TS. The mandibular full subperiosteal implant–clinical review of 100 cases. Dent Surv. 1980;56(4):32–8.
pubmed: 6933124
Young L Jr, Michel JD, Moore DJ. A twenty-year evaluation of subperiosteal implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49(5):690–4.
pubmed: 6574238
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90398-0
Linkow LI, Ghalili R. Critical design errors in maxillary subperiosteal implants. J Oral Implantol. 1998;24(4):198–205.
pubmed: 10321207
doi: 10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0198:CDEIMS>2.3.CO;2
Nguyen TM, Caruhel JB, Khonsari RH. A subperiosteal maxillary implant causing severe osteolysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;119(6):523–5.
pubmed: 29940264
doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.06.007
Mommaerts MY. Additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(7):938–40.
pubmed: 28258795
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.02.002
Carnicero A, Peláez A, Restoy-Lozano A, Jacquott I, Perera R. Improvement of an additively manufactured subperiosteal implant structure design by finite elements based topological optimization. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15390.
pubmed: 34321582
pmcid: 8319128
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94980-1
Castrillo G, Carnicero A, Perera R. Submodelling approach to screw-to-bone interaction in additively manufactured subperiosteal implant structures. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2023;39(2): e3672.
pubmed: 36541118
doi: 10.1002/cnm.3672
Bai L, Zheng L, Ji P, Wan H, Zhou N, Liu R, Wang C. Additively manufactured lattice-like subperiosteal implants for rehabilitation of the severely atrophic ridge. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2022;8(2):912–20.
pubmed: 34984904
doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00962
Gellrich NC, Rahlf B, Zimmerer R, Pott PC, Rana M. A new concept for implant-borne dental rehabilitation; how to overcome the biological weak-spot of conventional dental implants? Head Face Med. 2017;13(1):17.
pubmed: 28962664
pmcid: 5622522
doi: 10.1186/s13005-017-0151-3
Spalthoff S, Borrmann M, Jehn P, Rahlf B, Gellrich NC, Korn P. Comparison of conventional and digital workflow for dental rehabilitation with a novel patient-specific framework implant system: an experimental dataset evaluation. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8(1):4.
pubmed: 35072825
pmcid: 8786984
doi: 10.1186/s40729-022-00405-7
Yan Q, Wu X, Su M, Hua F, Shi B. Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10): e029826.
pubmed: 31662363
pmcid: 6830603
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029826
Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. 15-year follow-up of short dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient: mandible vs maxilla. Ann Anat. 2019;222:88–93.
pubmed: 30448466
doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2018.11.003
Cruz RS, Lemos CAA, de Batista VES, Yogui FC, Oliveira HFF, Verri FR. Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001
pubmed: 33158693
Raghoebar GM, Onclin P, Boven GC, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl 21):307–18.
pubmed: 30624789
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13055
Antonoglou GN, Stavropoulos A, Samara MD, Ioannidis A, Benic GI, Papageorgiou SN, Sándor GK. Clinical performance of dental implants following sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials with at least 3 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:e45–65.
pubmed: 29763503
doi: 10.11607/jomi.6417
Robert L, Aloy-Prósper A, Arias-Herrera S. Vertical augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2023;15(5):e357–65.
pubmed: 37214750
pmcid: 10198694
doi: 10.4317/jced.60294
Hameed MH, Gul M, Ghafoor R, Khan FR. Vertical ridge gain with various bone augmentation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):421–7.
pubmed: 30719781
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13028
Anitua E, Anitua B, Alkhraisat MH, Piñas L, Torre A, Eguia A. Dental implants survival after nasal floor elevation: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol. 2022;48(6):595–603.
pubmed: 34965298
doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00219
Tavelli C, Tedesco A. Survival and complication rate of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-22-00008 .
doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-22-00008
pubmed: 36473176
King S, Butterworth C. Attitudes regarding zygomatic implant surgical and prosthodontic techniques-a cohort questionnaire study. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;26(3):439–45.
pubmed: 34542775
doi: 10.1007/s10006-021-00999-z
Cebrián Carretero JL, Del Castillo Pardo de Vera JL, Montesdeoca García N, Garrido Martínez P, Pampín Martínez MM, Aragón Niño I, Navarro Cuéllar I, Navarro Cuéllar C. Virtual surgical planning and customized subperiosteal titanium maxillary implant (CSTMI) for three dimensional reconstruction and dental implants of maxillary defects after oncological resection: case series. J Clin Med. 2022;11(15):4594.
pubmed: 35956210
pmcid: 9369575
doi: 10.3390/jcm11154594
Jehn P, Spalthoff S, Korn P, Stoetzer M, Gercken M, Gellrich NC, Rahlf B. Oral health-related quality of life in tumour patients treated with patient-specific dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(8):1067–72.
pubmed: 31992467
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.01.011
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
pubmed: 19753108
pmcid: 2735783
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17:59–67.
pubmed: 15014055
doi: 10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59
Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. 2020;7:7.
pubmed: 32111253
pmcid: 7049186
Mommaerts MY. Evolutionary steps in the design and biofunctionalization of the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant ‘AMSJI’ for the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(1):108–14.
pubmed: 30131272
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.08.001
Elsawy MA, Elgamal ME, Ahmed WM, El-Daker MA, Hegazy SA. Polyetheretherketone subperiosteal implant retaining a maxillary fixed prosthesis: a case series. J Prosthet Dent. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.027 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.027
pubmed: 36210190
Van den Borre C, Rinaldi M, De Neef B, Loomans NAJ, Nout E, Van Doorne L, Naert I, Politis C, Schouten H, Klomp G, Beckers L, Freilich MM, Mommaerts MY. Patient- and clinician-reported outcomes for the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant (AMSJI) in the maxilla: a prospective multicentre one-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(2):243–50.
pubmed: 34074574
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.05.015
Van den Borre C, Rinaldi M, De Neef B, Loomans NAJ, Nout E, Van Doorne L, Naert I, Politis C, Schouten H, Klomp G, Beckers L, Freilich MM, Mommaerts MY. Radiographic evaluation of bone remodeling after additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implantation (AMSJI) in the maxilla: a one-year follow-up study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(16):3542.
pubmed: 34441837
pmcid: 8397126
doi: 10.3390/jcm10163542
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Van den Borre C, De Neef B, Loomans NAJ, Rinaldi M, Nout E, Bouvry P, Naert I, Mommaerts MY. Patient satisfaction and impact on oral health after maxillary rehabilitation using a personalized additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implant (AMSJI). J Pers Med. 2023;13(2):297.
pubmed: 36836531
pmcid: 9965586
doi: 10.3390/jpm13020297
Mangano C, Bianchi A, Mangano FG, Dana J, Colombo M, Solop I, Admakin O. Custom-made 3D printed subperiosteal titanium implants for the prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients: a case series. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):1.
pubmed: 31915946
pmcid: 6950914
doi: 10.1186/s41205-019-0055-x
Chamorro-Pons M, Arias-Gallo J, Margarit-Pérez L, Demaría-Martínez G, Cidad-Vicario A. Implantes subperiósticos personalizados para la rehabilitación completa del maxilar superior atrófico. Revisión de una serie clínica de 8 casos. Rev Esp Cirug Oral y Maxilofac. 2021;43(4):140–8.
Nemtoi A, Covrig V, Nemtoi A, Stoica G, Vatavu R, Haba D, Zetu I. Custom-made direct metal laser sintering titanium subperiosteal implants in oral and maxillofacial surgery for severe bone-deficient patients-a pilot study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(10):2531.
pubmed: 36292220
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12102531
Cerea M, Dolcini GA. Custom-made direct metal laser sintering titanium subperiosteal implants: a retrospective clinical study on 70 patients. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:5420391.
pubmed: 29998133
pmcid: 5994585
doi: 10.1155/2018/5420391
Dimitroulis G, Gupta B, Wilson I, Hart C. The atrophic edentulous alveolus. A preliminary study on a new generation of subperiosteal implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;27(1):69–78.
pubmed: 35119553
doi: 10.1007/s10006-022-01044-3
Mounir M, Atef M, Abou-Elfetouh A, Hakam MM. Titanium and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) patient-specific sub-periosteal implants: two novel approaches for rehabilitation of the severely atrophic anterior maxillary ridge. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(5):658–64.
pubmed: 29183698
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.11.008
Gellrich NC, Zimmerer RM, Spalthoff S, Jehn P, Pott PC, Rana M, Rahlf B. A customised digitally engineered solution for fixed dental rehabilitation in severe bone deficiency: a new innovative line extension in implant dentistry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(10):1632–8.
pubmed: 28867525
doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.022
Korn P, Gellrich NC, Spalthoff S, Jehn P, Eckstein F, Lentge F, Zeller AN, Rahlf B. Managing the severely atrophic maxilla: farewell to zygomatic implants and extensive augmentations? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;123(5):562–5.
pubmed: 34896647
doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2021.12.007
Rahlf B, Korn P, Zeller AN, Spalthoff S, Jehn P, Lentge F, Gellrich NC. Novel approach for treating challenging implant-borne maxillary dental rehabilitation cases of cleft lip and palate: a retrospective study. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8(1):6.
pubmed: 35106688
pmcid: 8807737
doi: 10.1186/s40729-022-00401-x
Korn P, Gellrich NC, Jehn P, Spalthoff S, Rahlf B. A new strategy for patient-specific implant-borne dental rehabilitation in patients with extended maxillary defects. Front Oncol. 2021;11: 718872.
pubmed: 34956858
pmcid: 8708135
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.718872
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.
pubmed: 18436948
pmcid: 2335261
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
De Bruyn H, Raes S, Ostman PO, Cosyn J. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: a review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):153–87.
pubmed: 25123767
doi: 10.1111/prd.12040
Sadid-Zadeh R, Zirkel C, Makwoka S, Li R. Fracture strength of interim CAD/CAM and conventional partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(8):720–4.
pubmed: 33450099
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13325
Nisand D, Picard N, Rocchietta I. Short implants compared to implants in vertically augmented bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:170–9.
pubmed: 26129707
doi: 10.1111/clr.12632
Badaró MM, Mendoza Marin DO, Pauletto P, Simek Vega Gonçalves TM, Porporatti AL, De Luca Canto G. Failures in single extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36:669–89.
pubmed: 34411206
doi: 10.11607/jomi.8689
Torres-Alemany A, Fernández-Estevan L, Agustín-Panadero R, Montiel-Company JM, Labaig-Rueda C, Mañes-Ferrer JF. Clinical behavior of short dental implants: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3271.
pubmed: 33053872
pmcid: 7599668
doi: 10.3390/jcm9103271
Vetromilla BM, Mazzetti T, Pereira-Cenci T. Short versus standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126:503–11.
pubmed: 32951871
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.002
Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonça MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;47:8–17.
pubmed: 26804969
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005
Garefis PN. Complete mandibular subperiosteal implants for edentulous mandibles. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39(6):670–7.
pubmed: 353267
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(78)80078-X
James RA, Lozada JL, Truitt PH, Foust BE, Jovanovic SA. Subperiosteal implants. CDA J. 1988;16(1):10–4.
pubmed: 3277724
Ferrer F. A newly designed partial subperiosteal implant and the classical design: a comparative study. P R Health Sci J. 1994;13(3):183–90.
pubmed: 7997500
Keleş HG, Karaca Ç. Comparison of stress distribution among standard dental implants placed in grafted bone, zygomatic implants, and subperiosteal implants in the atrophic edentulous maxilla: 3D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023;38(2):347–56.
pubmed: 37083910
doi: 10.11607/jomi.9987
Altıparmak N, Polat S, Onat S. Finite element analysis of the biomechanical effects of titanium and Cfr-peek additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implant (AMSJI) on maxilla. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2022.09.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2022.09.011
pubmed: 36152972
Golec TS. CAD-CAM multiplanar diagnostic imaging for subperiosteal implants. Dent Clin North Am. 1986;30(1):85–95.
pubmed: 3456935
doi: 10.1016/S0011-8532(22)02096-1
Valenti C, Isabella Federici M, Masciotti F, Marinucci L, Xhimitiku I, Cianetti S, Pagano S. Mechanical properties of 3D-printed prosthetic materials compared with milled and conventional processing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.008
pubmed: 35934576
Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):393–415.
pubmed: 30328204
doi: 10.1111/clr.13142
Ardhani R, Diana R, Pidhatika B. How Porphyromonas gingivalis navigate the map: the effect of surface topography on the adhesion of Porphyromonas gingivalis on biomaterials. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(14):4988.
pubmed: 35888454
doi: 10.3390/ma15144988
Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Piñas L, Torre A, Eguia A. Implant-prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: a systematic review. Spec Care Dentist. 2022;42(1):60–72.
pubmed: 34245172
doi: 10.1111/scd.12629
Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of short dental implants supporting single crown restoration in the molar-premolar region: cement versus screw retention. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:969–76.
pubmed: 30768661
doi: 10.11607/jomi.7227
Al-Nawas B, Aghaloo T, Aparicio C, Bedrossian E, Brecht L, Brennand-Roper M, Chow J, Davó R, Fan S, Jung R, Kämmerer PW, Kumar VV, Lin WS, Malevez C, Morton D, Pijpe J, Polido WD, Raghoebar GM, Stumpel LJ, Tuminelli FJ, Verdino JB, Vissink A, Wu Y, Zarrine S. ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants: indications, evaluation of surgical techniques and long-term treatment outcomes. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):28.
pubmed: 37698775
pmcid: 10497463
doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00489-9