Porous ceramic implants in the alveolar ridge of humans. A 3 1/2-year follow-up study

Porous ceramic (Al2O3) material with pore size of 100--750 micrometer was used for alveolar ridge augmentation in five patients. Clinical and radiographic examination at observation times varying from 11 months to 3 1/2 years revealed that seven out of a total number of nine implants were in function, covered by normal soft tissue. All patients were wearing complete dentures over the implant sites. In one of the patients treated with three ceramic pieces placed subperiosteally to restore alveolar height, one of the implants was lost after 3 1/2 years. In another individual, a minor dehiscence was found on examination after 2 1/2 years' implantation time. Interviews revealed that one of the patients had hypoesthesia and paresthesia in the mental nerve area on one side after ridge augmentation, while the remaining four patients had no complaints. All five individuals told of considerable improvement of denture stability after the implantation procedures.

An evaluation of porous alumina ceramic dental implants

The fabrication, characterization, and clinical results of porous rooted alumina dental implants in animals are presented. Failures of all implants occurred in less than six months and were attributed to the presence of microporosity on the crown and cervical portion of the implant which prevented the establishment of an effective biological seal between the oral cavity and the alveolus.

[Pathological findings in enosseous and subperiosteal implantations]

Several clinical observations in cases where implantations carried out alio loco lead to severe complications, prompted us to report five of these cases and to clarify with reference to the relevant literature the causative factors which have led to the failures. We hope hereby to contribute to the knowledge possibility of error and the limitations of the indications for dental implants.

Titanium endosteal dental implants in the mandibles of beagle dogs: a 2 year study

Forty of 44 vented endosteal blade implants were well tolerated by the mandibular tissues of beagle dogs, as demonstrated clinically, radiographically, and histologically. Infection and inflammation were not observed. The epithelium did not invade along the neck of the implants more than 2 mm. below the mandibular crest. After 3 to 6 months, except for increasing density of bone at the metal interface, no distinct pattern of reaction could be discerned histologically. Except for heavy collagenous investment in three dogs, there was no sign of the implants being treated as sterile foreign bodies. In this study, histology did not provide good criteria for evaluating the failure of vented endosteal blade implants. In four implants which failed, the most reliable signs of failure were increased mobility and/or sulcus depth around the neck of the abutments. Radiographic evaluation of implants provided the best means of determining bone resorption. Bone resorption was apparent 3 to 6 months after implantation, did not appear to be progressive, and did not indicate implant failure or impending implant failure in those animals in which it occurred. Radiolucent areas observed in 29 of the specimens contained connective tissue, marrow spaces, thin bone trabeculae, and nonpathologic tissues. Although in some of the dogs stress on implants did not cause failure, there is a need for further experimentation involving vented endosteal blades subjected to occlusal loading.

Anatomical considerations when using endodontic endosseous pins and blade implants

The use of pin and blade implants is evaluated from the point of view of the regional anatomy. Some principles are enunciated and a plea is made for the publication of more clinical analyses.

Methodology and criteria in the evaluation of dental implants

This study was designed to develop an inexpensive, reproducible method for studying the reaction of the tissues of the oral cavity to the endosseous implant. Thirty-six guinea pigs, three materials (Teflon, Vitallium, and Titanium 6Al-4V), two observation periods (two and 12 weeks), and two implant designs (one with exposure to the oral cavity and one without exposure to the oral cavity) were used. The inflammatory response was significantly greater in the exposed implants than in the unexposed implants. In the implants that were exposed 12 weeks, there was a strong interrelationship between severe inflammation, bacteria, and epithelial invagination. These factors are significant causes for failures of implants.