Research Grant: School of Dental Science Research Grant. The University of Melbourne – Financial support; Nobel Biocare Australia – For the supply of implants used in this study.
Treatment outcomes for adolescent ectodermal dysplasia patients treated with dental implants
Article first published online: 30 JUN 2005
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
Volume 15, Issue 4, pages 241–248, July 2005
How to Cite
SWEENEY, I. P., FERGUSON, J. W., HEGGIE, A. A. and LUCAS, J. O. (2005), Treatment outcomes for adolescent ectodermal dysplasia patients treated with dental implants. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 15: 241–248. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00610.x
- Issue published online: 30 JUN 2005
- Article first published online: 30 JUN 2005
To evaluate dental implant survival in patients with ectodermal dysplasia (ED). To assess patterns of hypodontia in this patient group.
Methods. A retrospective analysis of the use of dental implants in ED patients treated at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.
Results. Sixty-one implants were placed into 14 patients (nine male and five female). The mean age of patients receiving maxillary implants was 18 years 6 months (range 17 years 9 months−20 years 0 months) and mandibular implants was 17 years 5 months (range 12 years 2 months−21 years 11 months). The mean follow-up period was 3 years 4 months (range 1 year 18 months−5 years 1 month). Forty-three implants were placed in the anterior mandible, three in the posterior mandible and the remaining 15 in the anterior maxilla.
Of the 61 implants placed, 54 [88·5%] successfully integrated and were able to be restored. Three of the 15 implants placed into the anterior maxilla [20%] failed, while four of the 46 in the anterior mandible failed [8·7%]. Five of the 14 patients [35·7%] had at least one implant fail prior to abutment connection.
At the 12-month review appointments, 41 of the integrated 54 implants [76%] were reviewed and classed as successful, giving an overall success at follow up of 67·2%. Thirteen implants [21·3%] were unable to be reviewed owing to geographical reasons.
Teeth most likely to be present in the maxilla were the central incisors [71%], first molars [54%] and canines [43%], whereas in the mandible they were the canines [53%] and the first premolars and first molars [40%].
Conclusions. Dental implants can be placed, restored and loaded in ED patients. Maxillary teeth most likely to be present are the central incisors, canines and first molars, whereas in the mandible the canines, first premolars and molars are most likely to be present. Prior to cessation of growth, implant placement in the symphyseal region of the anterior mandible may be performed with caution. Despite the limited numbers and with due consideration to jaw development, the results support the continual use of endosseous dental implants in this group of patients for optimal clinical outcomes.