Browsing by Author "Hamilton, Adam"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clinical performance of immediately placed and immediately loaded single implants in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Wiley, 2023-09) Wittneben, Julia-Gabriela; Molinero-Mourelle, Pedro; Hamilton, Adam; Alnasser, Muhsen; Obermaier, Barbara; Morton, Dean; Galluci, German O.; Wismeijer, Daniel; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the following PIO question: In adult patients treated with an indication for single tooth extraction in the maxillary esthetic zone (15–25), what is the influence of an immediate implant placement and immediate loading protocol on the clinical performance (primary aim) and esthetic outcomes (secondary aim) focusing on investigations published after 2010. Material and Methods An electronic search in Medline (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases up to April 2022 was performed to identify clinical studies investigating the outcome of single implants subjected to immediate placement with immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A). Results Sixty-three studies (10 randomized controlled trials, 28 prospective and 25 retrospective cohort studies) were included with a follow-up ranging from 12 to 96 months. One thousand nine hundred sixty-one implants reported survival rates of 99.2 (98.6–99.5) % at 1 year, 97.5 (95.9–98.4) % after 3 years, and 95.8 (93.3–97.4) % after 5 years; 1064 immediately loaded restorations presented survival rates of 98.9 (97.8–99.5) % after 1 year, 96.8 (93.6–98.4) % after 2 years, and 94.8 (89.6–97.4) % after 5 years. Comparing baseline to 12-month data using the Hedges' g effect size (95% CI), papilla height presented an overall effect size of −0.71 (−1.25, −0.1) mm, midfacial recession change of −0.15 (−0.66, 0.36) mm, and a 0.82 (0.37, 1.28) gain in PES. Conclusions Immediate implant placement and immediate loading can be considered a predictable and safe treatment option for single maxillary anterior restorations with adequate survival rates and favorable esthetics outcomes for up to 5 years.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Prosthodontics and implant dentistry
    (Wiley, 2018-10) Morton, Dean; Gallucci, German; Lin, Wei-Shao; Pjetursson, Bjarni; Polido, Waldemar; Roehling, Stefan; Sailer, Irena; Aghaloo, Tara; Albera, Hugo; Bohner, Lauren; Braut, Vedrana; Buser, Daniel; Chen, Stephen; Dawson, Anthony; Eckert, Steven; Gahlert, Michael; Hamilton, Adam; Jaffin, Robert; Jarry, Christian; Karayazgan, Banu; Laine, Juhani; Martin, William; Rahman, Lira; Schlegel, Andreas; Shiota, Makato; Stilwell, Charlotte; Vorster, Christiaan; Zembic, Anja; Zhou, Wenjie; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Objectives Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full‐arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. Materials and methods Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. Results A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. Conclusions The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full‐arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One‐piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two‐piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Implant placement and loading protocols
    (Wiley, 2023-09) Morton, Dean; Wismeijer, Daniel; Chen, Stephen; Hamilton, Adam; Wittneben, Julia; Casentini, Paolo; Gonzaga, Luiz; Lazarin, Rafael; Martin, William; Molinero-Mourelle, Pedro; Obermailer, Barbara; Polido, Waldemar D.; Tahmaseb, Ali; Thoma, Daniel; Zembic, Anja; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Objectives Working Group 5 was convened to discuss and find consensus on the topics of implant placement and loading protocols associated with single missing teeth in the anterior maxilla (aesthetic zone). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives and future research suggestions were developed and presented to the plenary for discussion and approval. Materials and Methods Two systematic reviews were developed and submitted prior to the conference. The group considered in detail the systematic reviews and developed statements, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives and future research suggestions based on the findings of the reviews and experience of group members. Definitive versions were developed after presentation to and discussion by the plenary. Results Five consensus statements were developed and approved from each systematic review. Twelve clinical recommendations were developed by the group based on both reviews and experience. Three patient perspectives were developed, and five suggestions made for future research. Conclusions Based on the findings of the systematic reviews and experience of group members, the Type 1A protocol (immediate placement and immediate loading), when utilized in the anterior maxilla under favorable conditions, is considered predictable and is associated with high survival rates. The procedure is considered clinically viable and is associated with aesthetic outcomes, although surgical, technical, and biological complications can occur.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Wiley, 2023-09) Hamilton, Adam; Gonzaga, Luiz; Amorim, Karina; Wittneben, Julia-Gabriela; Martig, Lukas; Morton, Dean; Martin, William; Gallucci, German O.; Wismeijer, Daniel; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Objectives The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. Materials and Methods An electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane to identify publications reporting on the outcomes of Type 1A for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. The success and survival rates of the included articles were reported, which were further categorized according to the clinical criteria reported in Type 1A. Mean survival rates were univariately compared between risk groups and additionally between studies published before and since 2012 using bias-corrected and study size-weighed bootstrap tests. A study time-correcting meta-analysis was then performed to obtain an overall effect for the study pool. Results A total of 3118 publications were identified in the search, with a total of 68 articles included. A mean number of implants per study were 37.2 and mean follow-up was 2.8 years. All the included studies utilizing Type 1A report highly selective inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate risk group comparison determined that studies before 2012 report a significantly lower mean survival rate (difference of −1.9 percentage points [PP], 95% CI: [−0.3, −4.0], p = .02), facial gap dimension had an impact on survival rates (+3.1 PP [0.2, 5.3] for width >2 mm, p = .04), as well as presence of endodontic infection (+2.6 PP [0.9, 5.1], p = .004). Conclusions Type 1A has a high survival rate in studies reporting strict patient and site selection criteria. Further research is required to assess esthetic and functional success with Type 1A treatments.