Flapless implant surgery: a 2-year follow-up study of 40 implants

Accuracy of Implant Guided Surgery in Fully Edentulous Patients: Prediction vs. Actual Outcome-Systematic Review

Objectives: Examine deviations between the digitally planned and actual implant positions in clinical studies using static fully guided surgical guides. Identify potential associated factors and strategies to minimize their likelihood. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA checklist. The literature search was conducted in the PubMed® and Scopus® databases up to February 2024 following the PICOS search strategy. Clinical trials conducted between 2013 and 2024, evaluating the accuracy of static fully guided surgical guides placed in fully edentulous patients, were included. The studies had to assess at least two of the following parameters: angular deviation, cervical deviation, apical deviation, and depth deviation. Results: Out of the 298 articles initially searched, six randomized clinical trials and three clinical trials were included. All but one article used mucosa-supported guides; the remaining one used bone-supported guides. Apical deviations were more significant than cervical deviations, and implants tended to be placed too superficially. The greatest mean deviations were 2.01 ± 0.77 mm for cervical and 2.41 ± 1.45 mm for apical deviations, with the largest angular deviation recorded at 4.98 ± 2.16°. Conclusions: The accuracy of the surgical guide is influenced by various factors, including the technique of image acquisition and subsequent planning, guide support methods, and the adopted surgical protocol. Apical deviations are influenced by cervical and angular deviations. Additionally, deviations were more pronounced in the mandible. Further studies with similar methodologies are necessary for a more precise assessment of the different factors and for establishing safety margins.

Assessment of peri-implant tissues in posterior implants placed using flapless approach: A clinicoradiographic study

Background

It is important to prognosticate the hard- and soft-tissue alterations in immediate and delayed implants, as inadequacy can lead to complications affecting the long-term survival of the implant. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the hard- and soft-tissue changes in immediate and delayed posterior implants with a flapless approach.

Materials and Methods

With an equal allocation ratio, the study included 46 patients requiring implant treatment in the posterior segment, including the premolars and molars. Group 1 consisted of patients with immediate implants, whereas Group 2 consisted of patients who received delayed implants. The clinical parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index, modified sulcus bleeding index, probing depth, and soft-tissue assessment using the Testori esthetic score (TS), were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Hard-tissue parameters, such as buccal bone thickness (BBT), crestal bone height (CBH), and ridge width, were evaluated radiographically with cone-beam computed tomography at baseline and 12 months posttherapy.

Results

Intragroup comparisons in both the groups showed significant differences in PI, probing pocket depth, and TS over time (P = 0.00). The mean BBT at the crest in delayed implants (1.76 ± 0.24) significantly reduced after 12 months compared to immediate implants. A significantly higher TS score was observed after 12 months in both the groups.

Conclusion

A significant difference in TS scores after 12 months was found between the two groups, with better esthetics in Group 1 compared to Group 2. However, no significant changes in BBT or CBH were observed after 12 months in Group 1.

Comparative evaluation of circumferential crestal bone loss after 1 year of implant placement with flapless versus flap surgery using surgical template after immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region using cone-beam computed tomography: A randomized controlled trial

Aim

The study was aimed to evaluate circumferential crestal bone level after one year of implant placement with flapless versus flap surgery using surgical template after immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region using CBCT.

Setting and Design

The study was designed as a Randomized controlled trial.

Material and Methods

32 implants were placed in single edentulous spaces in the mandibular posterior region after random allocation into two groups: Flap surgery (Group A) and Flapless surgery (Group B). Virtual implant planning was performed using Blue Sky Bio software, and static CBCT guided 3D printed surgical templates were fabricated for all participants of both the groups. Immediate non-functional temporization was performed. Circumferential crestal bone levels were assessed after surgery and one-year follow-up using CBCT and XELIS software. Vertical bone loss (VBL) and horizontal bone loss (HBL) was assessed on four sides: buccal, lingual, mesial and distal.

Statistical Analysis Used

Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences IBM Corp. Released 2017, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and Graph Pad Prism 7.0 version. The level of significance was chosen <0.05. Chi square test was performed to assess the difference in the age in the two groups. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the two groups for outcome measure. Graphically, quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot was made using mean and standard deviation for normality verification of data.

Results

100% survival rate and patient compliance was observed along the one-year follow-up duration. By using Mann-Whitney U test, statistically significant difference was found in the vertical bone loss among participants of Flap surgery (Group A) and Flapless surgery (Group B) on all the four sides after one year of implant placement. However, significant results were not obtained for the difference in the horizontal bone level.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, vertical bone loss measured circumferentially was more positively correlated with the implants placed with flap surgery compared to flapless surgery after immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region after one year.

Healing of Peri-Implant Tissue following Flapless Implant Surgery

Background

Flapless surgery for implant placement has been gaining popularity among implant surgeons. it has numerous advantages, including preservation of circulation, decreased surgical time; improved patient comfort; and accelerated recuperation.

Materials and Methods

As a part of the study to evaluate crestal bone loss changes after placement of implant using the flapless technique, we placed twenty endosseous implants. Access was achieved to the crestal bone using a tissue punch. Clinical and radiographic analyses were performed second and fourth months after placement of the implant. Postoperative pain was measured by the visual analog scale at the 4th, 8th, and 24th hour.

Results

The findings of the present study demonstrate that the average crestal bone loss around the implant at 4 months using the flapless technique was 0.19 mm. No implants failed to osseointegrate, and no implants exhibited bone loss greater than 0.5 mm in the first four months. This present study shows significantly less postoperative pain in the flapless technique of implant placement.

Conclusion

The flapless approach is a predictable procedure when patient selection and surgical technique are appropriate.

Long-Term Effect of Guided Implant Surgery on Clinical Outcomes and Peri-Implantitis of Maxillary Implants-An Observational Cohort Study

(1) Although the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIP) is well reported, information on its long-term effect on peri-implant health and complications is scarce. (2) Twenty-six patients initially treated were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone level, peri-implant health, and complications were registered. A multilevel regression model was applied to study the relationship between the research variables. (3) Sixteen patients participated in this study (average age 58.5 years; range 27.8-73.8). The mean follow-up time was 9.1 years (range 7.3-11.3). Two implants failed, resulting in a survival rate of 97.1%. The mean bone level change corresponded to a loss of 0.63 mm (SD 1.90) for the whole group, 0.17 mm (SD 1.46), and 0.91 mm (SD 2.09) for tooth- and mucosa-supported guides, respectively. The mean PPD for the total group was 4.24 mm (SD 1.25), and 3.79 mm (SD 0.97) and 4.51 mm (SD 1.33) for the tooth- and mucosa-supported guides, respectively. Four implants (6.3%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Coronal deviation was slightly associated with having a negative impact on bone level at follow-up, but this was not statistically significant. Seven patients (43.8%) experienced technical complications. Biological complications were seen in 3/16 patients (18.75%). (4) SCAIP may contribute to more predictable implant placement; the long-term clinical outcome is similar to conventional nonguided surgery.

Incidence of Peri-Implantitis, Technical and Biological Complications of Single Implants Placed with Flap or Flapless Surgery-A 10-12-Year Case-Series

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up of single implants and crowns is scarce, especially when inserted using flapless surgery.

AIM

Evaluate survival, peri-implantitis incidence, and technical/biologic complications of solitary implants/crowns after 10-12 years of function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

49 patients with 53 single implants, initially operated with a one-stage flap (F) or flapless (FL) surgery and delayed loading, were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone-level changes compared to baseline, peri-implant health, and soft tissue aesthetics were registered. Differences in implant level between and within groups were statistically tested using the Mann-Whitney U-Test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, respectively.

RESULTS

36 patients with 40 implants were reassessed, yielding 100% implant and 97.5% crown survival. The bone loss in F (n = 19) was 0.56 mm (SD 0.89; range -0.9-2.02) and -0.85 mm (SD 0.98; range -2.84-0.53) in FL (n = 21), indicative of bone gain in FL (p = 0.003), the latter due to a difference at baseline but bone-level was comparable (p = 0.126). Groups were comparable for probing pocket depth (PPD); (3.32 vs. 3.19 mm), Bleeding Index (BI); (0.15 vs. 0.22), and gingival recession; (0.38 vs. 0.17 mm). According to international criteria, the peri-implantitis incidence was 0%, but 32.5% of the implants/crowns experienced biological or technical complications irrespective of surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Solitary implants and crowns show good long-term clinical outcomes and peri-implant health. Flapless surgery is a good alternative to conventional in straightforward cases with sufficient bone volume and proper treatment planning.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Soft Tissue Management: Aesthetics, Postoperative Morbidity, and Clinical Results

Background and Objectives: The necessity for less invasive and patient-friendly surgical therapies guided the development of the "minimally invasive surgical technique" (MIST). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of MIST for soft tissue management considering aesthetic results, postoperative morbidity, and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Several databases were used to conduct a thorough analysis of the scientific evidence. To investigate randomized clinical trials (RCTs), MeSH terms and keywords were provided. Results: Eleven RCTs were chosen. These experiments included 273 patients. The trials that explored MIST for papilla preservation presented greater efficacy in increasing papillary height (p < 0.05). MIST showed stable clinical outcomes for the management of excessive gingival display and with a flapless technique for single implant placement. Considering the treatment of gingival recessions, some RCTs presented greater root coverage with MIST (p < 0.05), while other trials did not show differences between groups. Regarding aesthetic perception, five RCTs indicated high patient satisfaction with MIST (p < 0.05). Similarly, six RCTs reported that patients in the MIST group presented significantly less post-surgical pain and lower wound healing scores (p < 0.01). Conclusions: It was concluded that using MIST resulted in more clinical studies reporting better clinical outcomes. Considering aesthetic appearance, slightly more than half of the clinical trials also showed improved results with MIST. Likewise, regarding postoperative morbidity, 60% of the clinical trials also described better scores with MIST. All of this indicates that MIST is a good alternative for the management of soft tissues.

Does implant placement using a minimally invasive technique increase early failures among trainees at an academic center?

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify whether dental implants placed using a flapless technique have a higher early failure rate, defined as failure within 6 months of placement, compared to implants placed with flap elevation when a surgical guide is not used.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate implants placed with either flapless (FL) or mucoperiosteal flap (MF) surgery between 2006 and 2012 at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center (PVAMC). Implant status after FL or MF surgery was assessed using dental encounter and radiographs at subsequent follow-up appointments to assess for early implant failures within 6 months of implant placement.

RESULTS

The FL technique was used to place 89 implants in 38 subjects, while the MF technique was used to place 381 implants in 139 subjects. Early failure occurred in 37 implants, of which 13 occurred in the FL group and 24 occurred in the MF group. FL surgery was found to be associated with a 265% increase in early implant failure (OR 2.653; 95% CL 1.287-5.469) and was statistically significant (p = 0.0064). Residents were over 200% more likely to have an early implant failure when using the FL technique (OR 2.314; 95% CL 1.112-4.816), CONCLUSIONS: Analysis revealed flapless implant placement was associated with higher early implant failure rates. In addition, early failures were more likely to occur when residents placed an implant using the flapless technique. While FL surgery can result in long-term success, it is a more technique-sensitive approach that requires greater clinical skill and stricter case selection to perform.

Using the Digital Flow to Increase Efficiency in Complex Partial Rehabilitation with Dental Implants

Background

This report presents a clinical case in which the CAD-CAM technology was applied to optimize a complex partial rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses of a patient with several functional and aesthetic issues. Case presentation. A 40-year-old patient with several complaints due to the absence of multiple teeth and great dissatisfaction regarding his oral health was referred to a Dental College (Curitiba, Brazil). Guided surgery of 11 implants was planned. Digital flow and immediate loading protocol were applied. The patient was followed up for 2 years presenting good clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Conclusions

The digital flow brought agility and precision to implant placement, immediate provisionalization added to satisfaction in the provisional phase, and CAD/CAM technology provided predictability and comfort to deliver the definite restorations.

Comparative evaluation of crestal bone level by flapless and flap techniques for implant placement: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

:To compare the crestal bone level of flapless technique of dental implant placement with the flap technique.

Setting and Design

This Systematic review and Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and registered with PROSPERO.

Materials and Methods

Electronic search of Medline and Google scholar databases for articles from 2010 till March 2020 was performed. Studies comparing the crestal bone level with both the techniques were included. After the collection of data, the risk of bias was assessed for each study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Meta-analysis was executed using RevMan 5 software version 5.3.

Results

23 studies were included. Statistically significant difference in crestal bone level was found between flapless and flap surgery with mean difference of -0.14 (flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; P = 0.01FNx01). The difference in crestal bone level between the 2 groups was not statistically significant with a mean difference of -0.05(Guided flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.00; P=0.06). Meta-analysis of the freehand flapless surgery with flap surgery generated a mean difference of -0.20 which was found to be statistically significant (Freehand flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.03; P=0.02FNx01).

Conclusions

Flapless placement of implant can positively influence crestal bone loss in comparison with conventional flap technique.

Comparison of general and aesthetic effects between flapless and flap techniques in dental implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Information about the aesthetic effects of flapless in implant surgeries is scant. Differences of the survival rate (SR) and crestal bone loss (CBL) between the two techniques were also controversial. Thus, this review was aimed to compare the general and aesthetic effects of flapless and flap approaches in implant surgeries.

Materials and methods

Following the principals of PRISMA, literature databases were searched for the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical performances of flap and flapless techniques. After that, relevant data of selected studies were pooled and analyzed to compare SR, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), visual analogue scale (VAS), papillae presentation index (PPI), keratinized mucosa (KM) width and CBL between the two techniques.

Results

Fourteen RCTs were included. No significant difference was found in SR (RR = − 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 0.05, 0.04)), BOP (OR = 0.40, 95% CI (0.15, 1.02)), KM width (WMD = − 0.42, 95% CI (− 1.02, 0.17)) between two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that the difference of CBL was insignificant in two groups (WMD = − 0.13, 95% CI (− 0.63, 0.38)). However, flap techniques would lead more peri-implant PD (WMD = − 0.37, 95% CI (− 0.51, − 0.23)). Subgroup analysis also indicated lower VAS scores in flapless group after 1 day (WMD = − 1.66, 95% CI (− 2.16, − 1.16)) but comparable pain experience after 3 days (WMD = − 0.59, 95% CI (− 1.33, 0.16)). Mean difference of PPI (WMD = 0.32, 95% CI (0.28, 0.35)) between the two groups was significant.

Conclusions

The flapless procedure showed a superiority in preserving gingival papillae, reducing postoperative pain and peri-implant PD compared to the flap procedure, while exhibiting comparable effects on SR, BOP, KW width changes and CBL. Flapless technique is more recommended at the ideal soft and hard tissue implanting sites.

Immediate implant placement in fresh alveolar sockets with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap: A randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Comparing PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, success, buccal bone thickness and patient-reported outcomes of immediate dental implants placed in fresh alveolar sockets using a flap or a minimal split-thickness envelope flap (MSTEF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Implants following random assignment into a flap or MSTEF group were placed immediately in anterior and premolar areas. Guided bone regeneration and autogenous connective tissue graft were used in all cases. A temporary prosthesis was provided followed by the final prosthesis at 16-18 weeks. Success and survival rates together with radiographic buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated at 12-month post-loading. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated through the Pink (PES) and White (WES) Aesthetic Score by 8 blind clinicians of different training background and incorporated in modified success criteria.

RESULTS

28 implants were placed on 28 patients. No statistically significant differences were noted in PES (10.54 control versus 10.80 test), WES scores (6.97 control versus 6.95 test) or success criteria including aesthetic parameters (modified success criteria) for the different specialty groups (Range 69%-92%). In addition, no statistically significant differences were noted in survival (100%), success (100%), buccal wall thickness between control (0.72 ± 0.22) and test group (0.92 ± 0.31) and patients' reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate dental implant treatment with flap/ MSTEF provided similar mean PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, mean buccal bone levels and patients' satisfaction. However, aesthetic failures were common in both groups.

Expectation and reality of guided implant surgery protocol using computer-assisted static and dynamic navigation system at present scenario: Evidence-based literature review

In the field of modern dentistry, ideal three-dimensional positioning of dental implant with optimal prosthetic fit offers successful long-term outcomes. To achieve such accurate implant placement, presurgical evaluation of hard and soft tissue matters the most. Their efforts can be attained using various application programs such as digital imaging, implant planning software, laboratory- or computer-assisted surgical guides, and dynamic navigation approach. To overcome different opinions and choices regarding guided surgery, this article explains an evidence-based literature review to assess its various outcomes and allowing informed choices before using various guided surgical techniques based on its expectation and reality outcomes. This highlights a clinician's choice to guide his successful implant surgery without causing distress in the midway of treatment. An online search was done on PubMed/Medline database to bring in accuracy to the expertise. This review includes reference of publications from 2000 to 2019, which is related to promising outcomes using computer-assisted static or dynamic navigation system for the placement of implant. Out of these, 809 were related to the computer-guided implant placement. Relevant papers were chosen in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This review article contemplates to reflect the fact that computer-guided approach is considered to offer more predictable, safer, and faster implant placement with the predetermined final prosthetic outfit. Thus, digital planning and placing of dental implants in the correct position keep escalating to a higher achievement levels than a classical freehand approach. Nevertheless, this guided surgical approach also holds some errors and risks, which must be identified and rectified.

Long-term clinical performance of flapless implant surgery compared to the conventional approach with flap elevation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The conventional implant approach involves flap elevation, which may result in increased soft tissue and bone loss and postoperative morbidity. The flapless surgical technique, aided by three-dimensional medical imaging equipment, is regarded as a possible alternative to the conventional approach to alleviate the above issues. Several studies have been performed regarding the role of flapless implant surgery. However, the results are inconsistent and there is no robust synthesis of long-term evidence to better inform surgeons regarding which type of surgical technique is more beneficial to the long-term prognosis of patients in need of implant insertion.

AIM

To compare the long-term clinical performance after flapless implant surgery to that after the conventional approach with flap elevation.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and grey literature databases were searched from inception to 23 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the long-term clinical performance after flapless implant surgery to that after the conventional approach over a follow-up of three years or more were included. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the long-term implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and complication rate of the flapless and conventional groups. Subgroup analyses were carried out to account for the possible effects of the guided or free-hand method during flapless surgery.

RESULTS

Ten articles, including four RCTs and six cohort studies, satisfied the eligibility criteria and nine of them were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the long-term implant survival rate [OR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.37, 4.54), P = 0.68], marginal bone loss [MD = 0.01, 95%CI (-0.42, 0.44), P = 0.97], and complication rate [OR = 1.44, 95%CI (0.77, 2.68), P = 0.25] after flapless implant surgery and the conventional approach. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the implant survival rate [guided: OR = 1.52, 95%CI (0.19, 12.35), P = 0.70]; free-hand: n = 1, could not be estimated), marginal bone loss [guided: MD = 0.22, 95%CI (-0.14, 0.59), P = 0.23; free-hand: MD = -0.27, 95%CI (-1.10, 0.57), P = 0.53], or complication rate [guided: OR = 1.16, 95%CI (0.52, 2.63), P = 0.71; free-hand: OR = 1.75, 95%CI (0.66, 4.63), P = 0.26] in the flapless and conventional groups either with use of the surgical guide or by the free-hand method.

CONCLUSION

The flapless surgery and conventional approach had comparable clinical performance over three years or more. The guided or free-hand technique does not significantly affect the long-term outcomes of flapless surgery.

Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous, Non-Submerged, Implant Placement Using a Minimally Invasive Hydraulic Technique

Background and objectives: To evaluate whether sinus augmentation, using a minimally invasive implant device, via a non-submerged surgical approach, might negatively influence the outcome. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by evaluating patients’ files, classifying them into two groups. Fifty patients (22 men 28 women) were included in the study, 25 in each group. The use of an implant device based on residual alveolar ridge height for sinus augmentation, radiographic evaluation, insertion torque, membrane perforation, post-operative healing, and a minimum of 12 months follow-up were evaluated. Results: The mean residual alveolar ridge height was 5.4 mm for the non-submerged group and 4.2 mm for the submerged group. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications (including membrane perforations). The mean insertion torque was 45 N/cm for the study group and 20 N/cm for the control group. Complete soft tissue healing was observed within three weeks. Mean bone gain height was 8 mm for the study and 9.3 mm for the control group. All implants osseointegrated after 6–9 months of healing time. Mean follow-up was 17.5 months, range 12–36 months. Marginal bone loss at last follow-up was not statistically significantly different: 1 mm in the non-submerged vs. 1.2 mm in the submerged group. Conclusions: Submerged and non-submerged healing following maxillary sinus augmentation was comparable provided residual alveolar ridge height >5 mm and insertion torque >25 N/cm.

Comparison between flapless and open-flap implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P=0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P=0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P=0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.

Clinical Evaluation of Placement of Implant by Flapless Technique Over Conventional Flap Technique

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical advantages of flapless implant surgery over conventional flap technique of implant placement by assessing the marginal bone loss in 1 month, 2 months and 3 months postoperatively, pain assessment, number of analgesics taken by the patients postoperatively and the postoperative swelling between two groups.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted at Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rajas Dental College and Hospital, Tirunelveli. The patients were assigned randomly to one of the two groups—flap (ten patients) or flapless (ten patients). Digital IOPARs were taken postoperatively. The parameters assessed were marginal bone loss (interproximal bone height), pain assessment by a 10-cm visual analog scale, swelling assessment by modification of tape measuring method by Gabka and Matsumara and the number of analgesics tablets taken every postoperative day from the day of surgery to 6 days after surgery.

Results and Statistics

Descriptive statistics was done by calculating measures of central tendency (mean) and measures of dispersion (standard deviation) for all the parameters. Inferential statistics were done by unpaired Student’s t test to compare the mean difference between the two groups. The results of this study showed that the mean difference in the bone loss for baseline to the third month for the flap group was 0.34 ± 0.05 and for the flapless group was 0.03 ± 0.004 (p = 0.000***). Pain assessment by visual analog scale was statistically significant in all the 5 postoperative days indicating a better patient compliance in the flapless group and there was no statistical difference in the level of swelling between these two groups.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that flapless implant surgery results in lesser loss of marginal bone and also results in better patient comfort; however, proper patient selection and technique is essential for a successful flapless implant surgery.

Use of a surgical template for minimally invasive second-stage surgery: A dental technique

The introduction of new techniques and new technology has been directly related to successful outcomes in implant dentistry. Merging information from high-quality cone beam computed tomography images and detailed prosthetically driven digital planning translates into computer-guided surgery. A surgical template is a guide used to assist in the proper surgical placement and angulation of dental implants. However, a surgical guide not only facilitates implant placement but can also be used for other purposes, including diagnosis, treatment planning, and even second-stage surgery. In situations where multiple implants have been placed through computer-guided implant surgery, the preexisting surgical template can be used to perform the second-stage surgery with a flapless approach if the patient's soft tissue condition permits.

Comparative evaluation of soft and hard tissue changes following endosseous implant placement using flap and flapless techniques in the posterior edentulous areas of the mandible-a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dental implant-supported restorations have long been used as a successful modality for replacing missing teeth. There are two well-established methods of implant placement. The traditional approach to implant surgery involves raising a mucoperiosteal flap and the alternative approach does not involve reflecting a flap, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of the present study was to compare and evaluate the soft and hard tissue changes around endosseous implants placed using flap and flapless surgery in mandibular posterior edentulous sites over a period of time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 systemically healthy patients with a single edentulous site in the posterior mandible were enrolled in this study and 20 endosseous implants were placed (10 in the flap group and 10 in the flapless group). The peri-implant probing depth was assessed. Radiographic assessment was done for changes in the marginal bone levels at the mesial and distal side of the implant with measurements made at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Patient-centered outcomes were assessed by using the visual analogue scale (VAS). All these parameters were statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, paired Student t test, and two-way ANOVA test and were considered to be significant if the p value was ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were enrolled in the present study and endosseous implants were placed. Eighteen subjects were followed up throughout the study period and two patients were excluded from the study. The mean PD in the flapless group was comparatively less than the flap group at 12 months and was found to be statistically significant. During the observation period of 12 months, reduction of crestal bone height around the implants placed by flapless and flap surgery were statistically significant. The flapless group showed less change in the crestal bone height which was statistically significant compared to the flap group. The mean VAS score on day 0 in the flap and flapless group was statistically significant. The flapless group showed significantly less pain when compared to the flap group.

CONCLUSION

Although the flapless technique of endosseous implant placement had statistically significant less PD, bone loss, and pain than the flap technique, the difference was found to have uncertain clinical significance.

Flapless dental implant surgery and use of cone beam computer tomography guided surgery

Flapless implant surgery is increasing in popularity, particularly due to advances and increased usage of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental implant treatment planning software allowing three-dimensional assessment of the implant site. It is the aim of the article to provide an overview of flapless implant surgery and CBCT guided flapless implant surgery and summarise the literature with regard to the effectiveness of this surgical technique.

Minimally invasive transgingival implant therapy: A literature review

Transgingival (flapless) implant placement procedure is a minimally invasive surgical technique in which implant is placed without reflecting mucoperiosteal flap and hence the blood supply of bone is not hampered which is advantageous in many ways. To compare the outcomes of various implant placement techniques, an electronic database of various journals from January 1990 to March 2017 were analyzed and only human clinical trials with 6 months follow-up and at least five implants in each group were reviewed. The present literature review focuses on the comparative aspects of flapped versus flapless implants in terms of their survival, marginal bone loss, soft-tissue parameters, and patient-centered outcomes. When the proper protocol is followed by experienced surgeons, no significant difference was observed in survival rate, marginal bone loss, and keratinized mucosal width between flapless and conventional flap technique. Although transgingival approach for implant placement is reported to significantly reduce the surgical time, increased patient comfort and acceptance, i.e. the patient centered outcomes such as postoperative pain, swelling, and visual analog score, are minimized. Hence, it is concluded that transgingival (flapless) implant placement technique is well accepted by the patient with potential outcomes as compared to the conventional implant placement approach.

Crestal Bone Loss under Delayed Loading of Full Thickness Versus Flapless Surgically Placed Dental Implants in Controlled Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Parallel Group Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To compare crestal bone loss around dental implants using a delayed loading protocol. Bone loss was compared in patients following conventional full thickness flap and flapless surgery in controlled type 2 diabetic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight type 2 diabetic patients satisfying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for this single center, parallel group study after obtaining institutional review board approval and informed consent. These patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I consisted of patients undergoing full thickness flap surgery for implant placement, and group II consisted of patients undergoing flapless surgery for implant placement. The mean age, duration of diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin levels, and male-to-female ratio in both groups were matched and compared statistically. Dental implants were placed followed by delayed loading (4 months) in both groups. Crestal bone loss was assessed with intraoral periapical radiographs with the help of computer software (DBSWIN viewer). Actual implant length acted as the radiographic index, and implant-abutment junctions were used as a reference point for all measurements. Mesial and distal bone levels at baseline, 6, and 12 months post implant placement of the two groups were determined. Mesial and distal crestal bone loss from baseline to 6 and 12 months were calculated and compared with Tukey test using SPSS v15.0 statistical analysis software.

RESULTS

Tukey test revealed similar (not statistically different) mean mesial crestal bone loss between the two groups after 6 months (0.47 ± 0.08 mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.13 mm, p = 0.576) and after 12 months (1.56 ± 0.25 mm vs. 1.50 ± 0.22 mm, p = 0.891). The mean distal bone loss resulting between the two groups was not statistically different at 6 months (0.44 ± 0.08 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.12 mm, p = 0.687) and at 12 months (1.57 ± 0.23 mm vs. 1.61 ± 0.22 mm, p = 0.947).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this clinical randomized control trial indicated that in controlled type 2 diabetic patients, levels of crestal bone loss around dental implants placed following conventional full thickness flap surgery was comparable to crestal bone loss around dental implants placed with the flapless surgical technique. More clinical studies are required regarding controlled type 2 diabetics with larger sample sizes, for long time periods to obtain more predictable results.

Minimally invasive flapless vs. flapped approach for single implant placement: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess the differences in implant survival rates, soft tissue preservation, patient centered outcome and crestal bone changes applying the minimally invasive (MI) flapless approach for single implant placement compared to flapped implant surgery (FS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects eligible for this study were randomly assigned into two groups: MI or FS. Items of evaluation were the following: implant installation position, soft tissue healing, post-surgical pain, soft tissue outcome, marginal bone loss (MBL), and implant survival rate.

RESULTS

Forty subjects (14 women and 26 men, 20 in MI group and 20 in FS group with a mean of 39 ± 13.2 years old) were included in the study. None of the implants demonstrated dehiscence or loss during the follow-up. Subjects in MI group showed significantly lower post-surgical pain and significantly less wound healing index scores at 1-week follow-up. The width of keratinized mucosa decreased from a mean of 4.2 ± 1.6 mm pre-surgically to 3.7 ± 1.1 mm at crown delivery but remained stable at 2-year follow-up in MI group. At every appointment in the study, no statistical significant difference of PD and MBL was found between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with FS, single implants placed applying the MI technique in selected subjects showed advantages in improving patient comfort and decreasing post-implant placement soft tissue reaction. Meanwhile, implants with MI approach have the same level of MBL and high success rates as FS procedure at 2-year follow-up. The deduction of keratinized mucosa is very limited and the width of KM remained stable with MI approach at 2-year follow-up.

Flapless versus conventional flapped dental implant surgery: a meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated by dental implants being inserted by a flapless surgical procedure versus the open flap technique, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. The search strategy resulted in 23 publications. The I² statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used for random-effects model or fixed-effects model, when indicated. The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in millimeters. Sixteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, whereas two studies were considered of moderate risk of bias, and five studies of low risk of bias. The funnel plots indicated absence of publication bias for the three outcomes analyzed. The test for overall effect showed that the difference between the procedures (flapless vs. open flap surgery) significantly affect the implant failure rates (P = 0.03), with a RR of 1.75 (95% CI 1.07–2.86). However, a sensitivity analysis revealed differences when studies of high and low risk of bias were pooled separately. Thus, the results must be interpreted carefully. No apparent significant effects of flapless technique on the occurrence of postoperative infection (P = 0.96; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.23–4.03) or on the marginal bone loss (P = 0.16; MD −0.07 mm, 95% CI −0.16–0.03) were observed.

Reasons for failures of oral implants

This study reviews the literature regarding the factors contributing to failures of dental implants. An electronic search was undertaken including papers from 2004 onwards. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. All reference lists of the selected studies were then hand-searched, this time without time restrictions. A narrative review discussed some findings from the first two parts where separate data from non-comparative studies may have indicated conclusions different from those possible to draw in the systematic analysis. It may be suggested that the following situations are correlated to increase the implant failure rate: a low insertion torque of implants that are planned to be immediately or early loaded, inexperienced surgeons inserting the implants, implant insertion in the maxilla, implant insertion in the posterior region of the jaws, implants in heavy smokers, implant insertion in bone qualities type III and IV, implant insertion in places with small bone volumes, use of shorter length implants, greater number of implants placed per patient, lack of initial implant stability, use of cylindrical (non-threaded) implants and prosthetic rehabilitation with implant-supported overdentures. Moreover, it may be suggested that the following situations may be correlated with an increase in the implant failure rate: use of the non-submerged technique, immediate loading, implant insertion in fresh extraction sockets, smaller diameter implants. Some recently published studies suggest that modern, moderately rough implants may present with similar results irrespective if placed in maxillas, in smoking patients or using only short implants.

The effect of flapless surgery on implant survival and marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of implants placed using the flapless approach have not yet been systematically investigated. Hence, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to study the effect of the flapless technique on implant survival rates (SRs) and marginal bone levels (MBLs) compared with the conventional flap approach.

METHODS

An electronic search of five databases (from 1990 to March 2013), including PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central, and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Human clinical trials with data on comparison of SR and changes in MBL between the flapless and conventional flap procedures, with at least five implants in each study group and a follow-up period of at least 6 months, were included.

RESULTS

Twelve studies, including seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one cohort study, one pilot study, and three retrospective case-controlled trials (CCTs), were included. The SR of each study was recorded, weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated, and meta-analyses were performed for changes in MBL. The average SR is 97.0% (range, 90% to 100%) for the flapless procedure and 98.6% (range, 91.67% to 100%) for the flap procedure. Meta-analysis for the comparison of SR among selected studies presented a similar outcome (risk ratio = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.01, P = 0.30) for both interventions. Mean differences of MBL were retrieved from five RCTs and two retrospective CCTs and subsequently pooled into meta-analyses; however, none of the comparisons showed statistical significance. For RCTs, the WMD was 0.07, with a 95% CI of -0.05 to 0.20 (P = 0.26). For retrospective CCTs, the WMD was 0.23, with a 95% CI of -0.58 to 1.05 (P = 0.58). For the combined analysis, the WMD was 0.03, with a 95% CI of -0.11 to 0.18 (P = 0.67). The comparison of SR presented a low to moderate heterogeneity, but MBL presented a considerable heterogeneity among studies.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review revealed that the SRs and radiographic marginal bone loss of flapless intervention were comparable with the flap surgery approach.

Geriatric slim implants for complete denture wearers: clinical aspects and perspectives

Background

Advances made in prevention have helped postpone complete edentulism in older patients. However, in the elderly, the physiological state reduces patients’ ability to adapt to oral rehabilitation and degrades the patient’s oral condition. Consequently, elderly edentulous subjects avoid many types of foods, which can lead to substantial nutritional consequences. Complete dentures retained by implants are, currently, the treatment of reference in prosthodontic mandibular rehabilitation. Indeed, the mandibular symphysis generally tolerates implantation, even when the mandible is strongly resorbed. However, in the elderly, implant rehabilitation is compromised by the complexity of the surgical protocol and possible postoperative complications. In this context, the use of geriatric “slim implants” (GSI) offers an interesting alternative.

Methods

In the present study, the surgical and prosthetic procedures for the use of GSI in a French dental hospital are presented. The objective was the stabilization of a complete mandibular denture in an elderly person, with the immediate implantation of four GSI.

Results

The operating procedure was found to be less invasive, less expensive, simpler, and more efficient than the conventional procedure.

Conclusion

The result strongly suggests that this protocol could be used systematically to treat complete edentulism in very elderly patients. Long-term monitoring and the evaluation of the reliability of this type of rehabilitation should be undertaken.