Papilla and alveolar crest levels in immediate versus delayed single-tooth zirconia implants

Clinical performance of immediately placed and immediately loaded single implants in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Effect of systemic antiresorptive medication on the histopathological parameters of implant osseointegration in an in vivo rodent study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of zirconia and titanium implants in the rat maxilla in specimens under systemic antiresorptive therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After 4 weeks of systematic medication administration (either zoledronic acid or alendronic acid), 54 rats received one zirconia and one titanium implants that were immediately inserted in the rat maxilla after tooth extraction. Twelve weeks after implant placement, histopathological samples were evaluated for implant osteointegration parameters.

RESULTS

The bone-implant-contact (BIC) ratio revealed no significant inter-group or inter-material differences. The distance between the implant shoulder to the bone level was significantly greater around the titanium implants of the zoledronic acid group compared to the zirconia implants of the control group (p = 0.0005). On average, signs of new bone formation could be detected in all groups, although often without statistical differences. Signs of bone necrosis were only detected around the zirconia implants of the control group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 3-month follow-up, no implant material was demonstrably better than the others in terms of osseointegration metrics under systemic antiresorptive therapy. Further studies are necessary to determine whether there are differences in the osseointegration behavior of the different materials.

Advancing dental implants: Bioactive and therapeutic modifications of zirconia

Zirconium-based implants have gained popularity in the dental implant field owing to their corrosion resistance and biocompatibility, attributed to the formation of a native zirconia (ZrO₂) film. However, enhanced bioactivity and local therapy from such implants are desirable to enable the earlier establishment and improved long-term maintenance of implant integration, especially in compromised patient conditions. As a result, surface modification of zirconium-based implants have been performed using various physical, chemical and biological techniques at the macro-, micro-, and nano-scales. In this extensive review, we discuss and detail the development of Zr implants covering the spectrum from past and present advancements to future perspectives, arriving at the next generation of highly bioactive and therapeutic nano-engineered Zr-based implants. The review provides in-depth knowledge of the bioactive/therapeutic value of surface modification of Zr implants in dental implant applications focusing on clinical translation.

Immediate implant placement vs. early implant treatment in the esthetic area. A 1-year randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of implant placement and temporization timing on esthetic outcomes of single maxillary anterior implants with intact bone walls and interproximal bone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Test group patients received an immediate implant with immediate provisional restoration and socket preservation, while patients in the control group received an early implant placement with guided bone regeneration and delayed loading. Patients were followed for 1 year after final prosthetic and pink esthetic score (PES), mid-buccal mucosal level (MBML), crestal bone changes (CBC), and peri-implant soft tissue parameters, and patient chair time was recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty patients received the intended treatment (25 test and 25 control). No implants failed. PES after 1 year was 12.8 ± 1.19 for the test group and 12.5 ± 1.36 for the control group (p = .362). MBML difference between baseline (after final crown delivery) and the 1-year follow-up was gain of 0.2 ± 1.02 mm for the test group (p = .047) and no change in the control group. CBC after 1 year were 0.1 mm ± 0.21 mm (mesial) and 0.2 mm ± 0.22 mm (distal) for the test group and 0.2 mm ± 0.25 mm (mesial) and 0.3 mm ± 0.19 mm (distal) for the control group, p = .540 (mesial) and p = .462 (distal). Test group required half the chair time (127 ± 13 min) when compared to the control group (259 ± 15 min, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this trial, both treatment protocols resulted in excellent esthetic outcomes with PES >12 after 1-year follow-up.

Zirconium dioxide implants as an alternative to titanium: A systematic review

Background

This systematic review evaluates the available scientific literature to demonstrate the aesthetic and clinical benefits and to determine the survival and the success of zirconium dioxide implants concerning titanium implants.

Material and Methods

The electronic databases were searched until January 2020. Outcome measures were pink aesthetic score (PAS), white aesthetic score (WAS), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing depth (PD). The addressed PICO question was: In partially edentulous patients in the upper-anterior sector, do zirconium dioxide implants provide aesthetic benefits over conventional titanium implants?

Results

In the 15 articles included after the screening were evaluated respectively, the pink aesthetic score, white aesthetics score, the peri-implant, and crown index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, probing pocket depth, radiographic bone loss, papilla height, and survival and success rate. The results show how the aesthetic and clinical benefits and the survival and success rate of zirconium dioxide implants are, in general, better than titanium implants.

Conclusions

Despite the optimal aesthetics, clinical and survival results obtained in the review, more studies are needed to confirm these data.

Key words:Ceramic dental implants, zirconia implants, esthetics, zirconium dioxide and zirconia.

Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review

Background: The clinical use of zirconia implants has been shown to increase steadily due to their biological, aesthetic, and physical properties; therefore, this bibliometric study aimed to review the clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implant rehabilitation. Methods: We searched Scopus and Web of Science databases using a comprehensive search strategy to 5 October 2020, and independently paired reviewers who screened studies, and collected data with inclusion criteria restricted to clinical research only (either prospective or retrospective). Data on article title, co-authors, number of citations received, journal details, publication year, country and institution involved, funding, study design, marginal bone loss, survival rate, failure, follow-up, and the author’s bibliometric data were collected and evaluated. Results: A total of 29 clinical studies were published between 2008 and 2020 as 41.4% were prospective cohort studies and 48.3% originated from Germany. Most of the included studies had been published in Clinical Oral Implant Research (n = 12), and the most productive institution was the Medical Center of University of Freiburg. The author with the largest number of clinical studies on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n = 10), followed by Spies B.C. (n = 8). Conclusions: This study revealed that zirconia implants have been more prominent in the last ten years, which is a valuable option for oral rehabilitation with marginal bone loss and survival rate comparable to titanium dental implants.

Aesthetic aspects of adjacent maxillary single-crown implants-influence of zirconia and titanium as implant materials

The purpose of this retrospective survey was to assess the esthetic aspects of adjacent zirconia and titanium implants in the anterior maxillary area. A total of 40 patients and 109 adjacent implants (17 patients with 47 titanium implants and 23 patients with 62 zirconia implants) was included. The primary aim of this survey was to assess the papillary fill (Jemt score). Additionally, further esthetic aspects were assessed. Papillae were fully present (Jemt score 3) around 39.1% of adjacent zirconia implants and 17.4% of adjacent titanium implants (p<0.01). The papilla deficit was significantly higher 1.64 mm (SD 1.35) around titanium compared to zirconia implants 0.92 mm (SD 0.94, p<0.01). The evaluation of the soft tissue recessions revealed no differences between implant materials, whereas titanium implants presented more visible implant shadows (p<0.01). Zirconia implants had more implants with papillae that filled the entire proximal space compared to titanium implants. Furthermore, titanium implants had a greater frequency of visible implant shadowing than the zirconia implants. Esthetic rules such as the interdental contact area and golden percentage rules did not differ significantly between the titanium and zirconia implants.