Cited by 119Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesDental materials and restorationsOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Custom-made 3D printed subperiosteal titanium implants for the prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients: a case series

Open access
Mangano, Carlo, Bianchi, Andrea, Mangano, Francesco Guido, Dana, Jessica, Colombo, Marco, Solop, Ivan, Admakin, Oleg·2020·3D Printing in Medicine

Abstract

Purpose: To present the application of custom-made 3D-printed subperiosteal implants for fixed prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients. Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, all partially edentulous patients aged over 65 years, with two or more missing teeth in the posterior atrophic mandible, and who did not want to undergo bone regenerative procedures, were included in this study. These patients were rehabilitated with custom-made subperiosteal implants, designed from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and fabricated in titanium by means of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS). The outcome measures were fit and stability of the implants at placement, duration of the intervention, implant survival, and early and late complications. All patients were followed for 1 year after surgery. Results: Ten patients (four males, six females; mean age 69.6, SD ± 2.8, median 69, 95% CI 67.9–71.6) were included in the study. The fit of the implants was satisfactory, with a mean rating of 7 out of 10 (SD ± 1.6, median 7, 95% CI 6–8). Only two implants had insufficient fit, because of the presence of scattering in the CBCT; however, they were adapted to the sites during the interventions. The mean duration of the intervention was 44.3 min (SD ± 19.4, median 37, 95% CI 32.3–56.3). At the one-year follow-up, no implants were lost (survival rate 100%). One implant presented immediate postoperative complications with pain, discomfort and swelling, and two patients experienced late complications, having their provisional restorations fractured during the temporisation phase. All these complications were minor in nature, but the final complication rate amounted to 30% (three of ten patients). Conclusions: Although this study has limits (small patient sample and short follow-up), DMLS has proven to be an effective method for fabricating accurate subperiosteal implants, with high survival rates. This may represent an alternative treatment procedure in elderly patients with a severely atrophic posterior mandible, since it allows avoidance of regenerative bone therapies. Further studies are needed to confirm these outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41205-019-0055-x

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Linkow LI Ghalili R Ramus hinges for excessive movements of the condyles: a new dimension in mandibular tripodal subperiosteal implants J Oral Implantol 1999 25 1 11 17 10.1563/1548-1336(1999)025<0011:RHFEMO>2.3.CO;2 10483422 · DOI
  2. [5]Linkow LI Use of a tripodal mandibular subperiosteal implant with ramus hinges for facial asymmetry J Oral Implantol 2000 26 2 120 123 10.1563/1548-1336(2000)26<120:CR>2.0.CO;2 11831328 · DOI
  3. [6]Linkow LI Ghalili R Critical design errors in maxillary subperiosteal implants J Oral Implantol 1998 24 4 198 205 10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0198:CDEIMS>2.3.CO;2 10321207 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mangano, C., Bianchi, A., Mangano, F. G., Dana, J., Colombo, M., Solop, I., & Admakin, O.
Affiliations
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • Sechenov University (RU)
Corresponding author
Mangano, Francesco Guido
Venue
3D Printing in Medicine
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
2365-6271 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999934826
Cited by
119
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
15.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • 3D Printing in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
subperiosteal implants, 3D-printed implants, titanium implants, atrophic posterior mandible, edentulous mandible, elderly patients, direct metal laser sintering, cone-beam computed tomography, implant survival, implant stability, implant complications, fixed prosthetic restorations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review