<div>Frailty and Mini Dental Implants</div><div>INTRODUCTION</div><div>Many dental implant patients are older and can have atrophic edentulous,
bimaxillary jaws. Along with edentulism many are aged and may be frail.
Frailty is typically diagnosed (ICD10 Code: R54) when three of the
following five criteria are met:
low physical
activity, weak grip strength, low energy, slow walking speed, and
unintentional weight loss (1).</div><div>There can be ancillary diagnoses. Sarcopenia (ICD10-M62.84) is a loss of
skeletal muscle that is primarily associated with aged patients with
comorbidities. Frailty and sarcopenia are closely related but frailty
may include cognitive and social issues (1,2,3).</div><div>The baby boomer generation is aging and with that many of these people
will become frail. Many will also be partially or completely edentulous
with atrophic jaws. This makes adequate retention and function of dental
prostheses unlikely. A denture adhesive may not be adequate for good
denture stability and function, especially in the mandible. Minimally
invasive mini dental implants may provide adequate to excellent
retention of a complete denture for better nutrition and quality of
life.</div><div>Mini implants used to retain an overdenture may provide adequate
function for the frail patient. Because these patients are frail and can
be bimaxillary atrophic, a minimally invasive treatment may be
appropriate. Minimally invasive treatment can be instituted to minimize
physiologic stress and costs.</div><div>CASE REPORT</div><div>A 77 YO male presented for treatment with a chief complaint of “I can’t
eat with these dentures”. Visual and panoramic radiographic
examinations revealed bimaxillary edentulism with atrophy and an
unstable mandibular complete denture. This polypharmacy patient had been
diagnosed as frail and was not able to physically tolerate an extensive
surgical or prosthetic procedure. The fit and flat zero-degree occlusal
scheme of the existing dentures was adequate. The lower denture was
well-fitting, but the residual ridge was inadequate for appropriate
retention. The maxillary complete denture did not have excellent
retention on the atrophic ridge. The patients primary care physician was
contacted, and the procedure was explained, and medical clearance was
obtained. Treatment options and a definitive treatment plan were
discussed with the patient, and informed consent obtained.</div><div>After local facial and lingual infiltration
with1.6cc articaine (Septocaine), four mini-implants
(IntraLock 2.5X13mm) were surgically placed in the anterior mandible in
type 1 bone density. Proprietary drills and instrumentation were used in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The implants were
immediately loaded with the retainers embedded by pick-up in the
existing complete mandibular denture (Fig. 1,2). The attached tissue was
adequate for the mini-implants and no soft tissue flap was raised. The
lower denture immediately had much better retention that impaired much
better function. The maxillary complete denture increased in retention
due to the stability of the mandibular denture. The patient functioned
uneventfully and followed for eight years upon his death. The improved
oral function may have prolonged this patient’s life.</div><div>THE DIAGNOSIS OF FRAILTY</div><div>Many elderly patients are diagnosed as frail. This means that these
people may be seriously harmed by an extensive oral surgery. A fatality
may even occur. There are several sets of criteria for a diagnosis of
frailty (1,2,3).</div><div>Frailty may be defined as an aging-related syndrome of physiological
deterioration (2,3). This causes the patient to be vulnerable to a
variety of old age disorders and diseases. Symptoms present as weakness
and fatigue, complex medical issues, and relative intolerance to medical
interventions. There is no standard definition of the diagnosis of
frailty. There are frailty screening tests for assessing health risk
assessment and epidemiology.</div><div>One single parameter for the diagnosis of frailty is the TUG test, the
time measured for a patient to get up of a chair walk ten feet (3 m),
turn around and then return to be seated again (4, 5,6). 10 seconds or
less is “normal”. 14 seconds or greater indicates a high risk for
falling.</div><div>A set of other parameters are: unintentional weight loss of more than 10
lbs., weak hand grip strength, self-reported exhaustion, walking speed
slower than 0.8m/second, and low physical activity (2). If a patient has
none of these criteria, then there is no frailty. If 1 or 2 of these are
met, then there is intermediate frailty. A diagnosis of frailty is met
when 3 or more of these criteria are met (2).</div><div>Another set of parameters are: self-reported fatigue, inability to climb
one flight of stairs, inability to walk one city block, having more than
5 illnesses, and more than 5% unintentional weight loss (5,6). Again,
if 1-2 criteria are met then there is intermediate frailty and if 3 or
more are met then there is a diagnosis of frailty (5,6). Women with
cirrhosis have a higher frailty rate than men with similar disease
severity (7Lai, 8Sheikh). There are other criteria to be used to
diagnose frailty but there is no agreed upon standard.</div><div>DISCUSSION</div><div>Frailty is associated with African American heritage, low education, low
income, poorer general health, and comorbid chronic conditions (2,3).
The frailty phenotype is predictive for incidence of falls, decreasing
mobility, disability, hospitalization, and death.</div><div>Patients can be frail at any age depending on their physical condition
as a result of age, disease or disability. Many of these patients cannot
financially afford extensive treatment. Nonetheless, they are still in
need of nutrition, and a decent quality of life for appearance and
speech. Mini implants are generally relatively inexpensive and easy to
place in appropriate sites (9).  The bone density is important. Type 1
and 2 densities are appropriate, but any less dense site may not provide
adequate resistance for immediate occlusal loading (9). Load resistance
immediately depends on the mechanical resistance in dense bone until
osseointegration occurs (9). Mini implants for this purpose have a
processed rough surface that is intended to osseointegrate (9).</div><div>Osseous site dimensional requirements for mini-implants are similar to
the requirements for standard sized dental implants except that the bone
width can be much less. The decreased osseous width is associated with
more dense bone (9,10).</div><div>Atrophic bone in the maxilla may not be dense enough to resist occlusal
loading. However, there can be very dense osseous islands that can
provide appropriate implant support. Thus, it is incumbent on the
clinician to evaluate preoperatively the quality of the maxillary bone.
Hounsfield units (HU) on cone beam computerized tomographs can give an
indication of bone density but HU is not completely reliable (10). HU
does provide an approximation of bone density. Intraoperative
sensibility by the operator is the ultimate test for bone density.
Nonetheless, density is not uniform in bone. Thus, one not so dense site
may be just a millimeter or two away from a very dense osseous site
(10). This means that if an implant is placed into a less dense site the
surgeon may elect to relocate the osteotomy 1-2mm away and find that
bone to be very dense.</div><div>Bite force capacity may be an important preoperative parameter. A
patient with a high bite force capacity my overload the
retaining mini-implants. Since these patients are frail, the biting
force they generate can be as low as 30 newtons (11). Such a low biting
load would not cause a luxation of a properly placed mini-implant (11).</div><div>Mini implants that retain a denture should be long as anatomically
possible to prevent overload (9). A preoperative cone beam computerized
tomogram is appropriate to identify anatomical landmarks to be avoided.
Atrophic bone may be thin and needs to be measured so the risk of a
perforation is minimized (9). Even though length does not add as much
resistance to loading as width, every bit of osseous contact is required
for a long-term successful outcome (9). The long length may contribute
enough resistance to tolerate a happenstantial increased load such as
caused by a fall or biting on a seed.</div><div>There needs to be adequate attached tissue or soft tissue that is
immovable or that may be augmented with a tunnel dermal allograft or
porcine collagen xenograft (12). A donor site type free gingival or
submucosal graft may not be tolerable for the frail patient (12).
Additionally, immovable mucosa may suffice for protection for the
epithelial attachment around the implant, be it a mini or standard sized
(Fig. 3). The key factor is the prevention of muscle tension on the
epithelial attachment (9,12).</div><div>The mini-implants can be immediately loaded with retainers embedded in
an existing well-fitting, occlusally correct, complete denture, by
pick-up, when the ridge is composed of dense atrophic bone. As the
mandibular ridge atrophies the facial and lingual cortices approach one
another. After a time, the intraosseous surfaces of the cortices may be
1-2 mm apart (Fig. 4). This allows placement of a small diameter
mini-implant that engages the facial and lingual dense cortices for
excellent initial stability. The dense cortices provide excellent
stability allowing the mini-implants to be immediately loaded.</div><div>A lingualized or flat zero-degree occlusal scheme are best to prevent
significant lateral or off axial loads on the retaining implants
(13,14,15,16)</div><div>Even though these mini-implants have small diameters they are very
durable and resistant to fatigue (13). One study demonstrated that
mini-implants withstand a million laterally directed load cycles without
fracture (13).</div><div>An overdenture retained by four mini-implants are generally not as
retentive as Locator<sup>®</sup> retainers (14,15,16).
Nonetheless, if there is adequate ridge length, additional implants can
provide more retention that can be excellent (14,15,16). Flat
zero-degree denture teeth or lingualized occlusal schemes may be most
appropriate to minimize lateral loads (14,15,16).</div><div>If a mini-implant fails, there is typically only minor bone loss. A
larger implant failure may have a much larger volume of bone loss that
may present a risk for fracture of a thin atrophic mandible (14,15,16).</div><div>Progressive geriatric disorders such as dementia and Parkinson’s
disease will limit the patient’s ability to cooperate and follow
instructions. This may put this patient’s oral health at risk.
Successful dental treatment of frail patients should include an
understanding of how the patient is medically, socially, and emotionally
functioning. (14,15,16,17)</div><div>Frail geriatric patients are a diverse group with multiple disabilities.
Their life experiences can complicate clinical dental care.  The
treatment process should be based on a philosophy that addresses the
best interests of the patient. (14,15,16,17)</div><div>The patient and clinician working in tandem decide the treatment
(17,18,19). The patient is informed of the risks and benefits. The
treatment should be determined by the patient’s health, functional
needs, quality of life and not their age. Elderly patients heal in the
same fashion as younger patients (17,18,19). Patients older than 80 may
have less bone loss and fewer implant failures than younger patients
(18,19).</div><div>CONCLUSIONS</div><div>Frail patients need adequate nutrition and a decent quality of life.
Many of these patients are edentulous and can be bimaxillary atrophic.
Improved quality of life may be provided with mini-implant treatment in
atrophic jaws especially in elderly patients in their waning years. A
CBCT may be appropriate to identify anatomical structures to be avoided.
Anatomically appropriate long-length mini-implants that are immediately
loaded to retain a denture may be an appropriate treatment for the frail
patient. A flat zero degree or lingualized occlusal scheme may be most
appropriate. An unlikely high bite force capacity may indicate a
contraindication for a denture retained with mini-implants.
Post-treatment, careful follow-up is needed to insure adequate function
and outcome. There are advantages for these patients with mini-implant
treatment. A failed mini-implant causes much less bone loss than a
standard-sized implant failure. Additionally, mini-implant treatment has
a relatively low associated cost. Contemporary CBCT
enables mini-implants to be placed by general dentists.</div><div>The author claims no financial, commercial or political conflicts of
interest.</div><div>Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from the patient to
publish this report in accordance with the journal’s patient consent
policy”</div><div>ABBREVIATIONS: CBCT= cone beam computerized tomogram</div><div>FIGURE CAPTIONS</div><div>Figure 1- The patient presented with an atrophic edentulous ridge that
was treated with 2.5mm diameter mini-implants and immediately loaded.</div><div>Figure 2- The patient was treated with small diameter, mini, implants to
retain the mandibular complete denture.</div><div>Figure 3- Immovable mucosa is adequate for epithelial attachment
protection.</div><div>Figure 4- As the alveolar ridge atrophies, the facial and lingual
cortices approach one another and provide dense facial and lingual bone
which provides excellent stability the mini-implant. The flukes of the
implant engage the cortices for excellent stability.</div><div>REFERENCES</div><div><div>1-     Torpy JM, Lynn C, Glass RM. Frailty in Older
Adults. <i>JAMA.</i> 2006;296(18):2280.</div></div><div>2-     Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch
C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G, McBurnie MA,
Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in
older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.
2001;56(3):M146.</div><div>3-     Kiely DK, Cupples LA, Lipsitz LA Validation and comparison of two
frailty indexes: The MOBILIZE Boston Study. J Am Geriatr Soc.
2009;57(9):1532. Epub 2009 Jul 21.</div><div><div>4-     Greene BR, Doheny EP, O’Halloran A, Anne Kenny R. Frailty status
can be accurately assessed using inertial sensors and the TUG test. Age
Ageing. 2014 May;43(3):406-411.


5-     Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Bergman H, Morley
JE, Kritchevsky SB, Vellas B. The I.A.N.A Task Force on frailty
assessment of older people in clinical practice. J Nutr Health Aging.
2008 Jan;12(1):29-37.


6-     Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Houles M, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Soto
M, Vellas B. The assessment of frailty in older adults.
Clin Geriatr Med. 2010 May;26(2):275-286.


7-      Lai JC, et al
Association of frailty and sex with wait list mortality in liver
transplant candidates in the multicenter Functional Assessment in Liver
Transplantation (FrAILT) study JAMA Surg 2020; DOI:
10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5674.


8-     Sheikh SS and Locke
JE Leveraging frailty to mitigate sex-based disparities in access to
liver transplant justice in allocation7 JAMA Surg 2020;
DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5675.


9-     Flanagan D. Rationale for Definitive Mini Dental Implant
Treatment. J Oral Implantol. 2020 Jul 14. doi:
10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00317. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32663848.


10- Di Stefano DA, Arosio P, Pagnutti S, Vinci R, Gherlone EF.
Distribution of Trabecular Bone Density in the Maxilla and Mandible.
Implant Dent. 2019 Aug;28(4):340-348.


11- Flanagan D. Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review.
Med Devices (Auckl). 2017 Jun 27;10: 141-148.


12- Flanagan D. Stented Porcine Collagen Matrix to Treat Inadequate
Facial Attached Tissue of Dental Implant Supported Fixed Partial
Dentures. J Oral Implantol. 2016 Apr;42(2): 209-213.


13- Flanagan D, Ilies H, McCullough P, McQuoid S. Measurement of the
fatigue life of mini dental implants: a pilot study. J Oral Implantol.
2008;34(1):7-11.


14- Fonteyne E, Van Doorne L, Becue L, Matthys C, Bronckhorst E,
De Bruyn H. Speech evaluation during maxillary mini-dental implant
overdenture treatment: A prospective study. J Oral Rehabil. 2019
Dec;46(12):1151-1160. QUALITY OF LIFE


15- Zygogiannis K, Aartman IH, Wismeijer D. Implant Mandibular
Overdentures Retained by Immediately Loaded Implants: A 1-Year
Randomized Trial Comparing Patient-Based Outcomes Between Mini Dental
Implants and Standard-Sized Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2018 Jan/Feb;33(1):197-205.


16- Lemos CA, Verri FR, Batista VE, Júnior JF, Mello CC, Pellizzer EP.
Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review. J
Dent. 2017 Feb;57:4-13.


17- Etöz O, Bertl K, Kukla E, Ulm C, Ozmeric N, Stavropoulos A. How old
is old for implant therapy in terms of implant survival and marginal
bone levels after 5-11 years? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021
Mar;32(3):337-348.


18- Marchini L, Ettinger R, Hartshorn J. Personalized Dental Caries
Management for Frail Older Adults and Persons with Special Needs. Dent
Clin North Am. 2019 Oct;63(4):631-651. doi:
10.1016/j.cden.2019.06.003. Epub 2019 Jul 16. PMID: 31470918.


19- Ozmeric N, Stavropoulos A. How old is old for implant therapy in
terms of implant survival and marginal bone levels after 5-11 years?
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Dec 23. doi: 10.1111/clr.13704. Epub ahead
of print. PMID: 33368735.</div></div>