Is an internal tapered connection more efficient than an internal nontapered connection? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vertical ridge augmentation with Ti-reinforced dense polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membranes or Ti-meshes and collagen membranes: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to evaluate hard and soft tissue parameters around implants placed in augmented posterior mandible, comparing Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membranes with Ti-meshes covered with collagen membranes, after 3 years of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty eligible patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membrane) or group B (mesh covered with collagen membrane) for vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) and simultaneous implants. Implants were evaluated using specific peri-implant parameters for bone and soft tissues: probing pocket depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BoP), modified gingival index (mGI), thickness of keratinized tissue (tKT), width of keratinized tissue (wKT), fornix depth (FD), peri-implant bone level (PBL), interproximal bone peaks (IBP), marginal bone loss (MBL), interproximal bone loss (IBL).

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients with 79 implants were evaluated after 3 years of follow-up. The mean value of MBL was 0.70 mm (group A = 0.73 mm; group B = 0.71 mm), while mean IBL was 0.54 mm (group A = 0.64 mm; group B = 0.40 mm). The treatment with meshes resulted not inferior to PTFE and their clinical results appeared similar. A strong correlation between PBL and IBP was confirmed. Both study groups showed an increase of tKT and wKT values.

CONCLUSION

In the posterior mandible, VRA using both techniques provides stable PBLs up to 3 years. A correct soft tissue management and a strict professional oral hygiene protocol play a crucial role on peri-implant health over time.

Marginal Bone Loss around Implants with Internal Hexagonal and Internal Conical Connections: A 12-Month Randomized Pilot Study

The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in terms of the marginal bone level (MBL) around implants with either an internal conical or an internal hexagonal implant–prosthesis connection. A randomized clinical trial included patients in need of a single implant-supported restoration. The implant–prosthesis connection was either internal conical or internal hexagonal while maintaining the same type of implant macro- and microarchitecture. Clinical and radiographical variables were registered up to 12 months of follow-up, including MBL. A total of 30 patients were included in the study. The main outcome variable, MBL 12 months after prosthesis delivery, was statistically different in both groups: −0.25 (0.12) vs. −0.70 (0.43) (conical vs. hexagonal; p = 0.033). Differences were also observed at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits as well as for the MBL change from prosthesis delivery to the 12-month follow-up (−0.15 (0.13) vs. −0.56 (0.44); conical vs. hexagonal; p = 0.023). Correlations between MBL around the implants and radiographic measurements on the adjacent teeth, buccal bone to implant, tissue thickness or keratinized tissue were not significant neither globally nor when analyzed independently by group. In view of such results, it can be concluded that single-unit restorations with internal hexagonal-connection implants induce higher marginal bone loss after 12 months of follow-up from prosthesis delivery than internal conical-connection implants.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.

The effect of implant-abutment connections on peri-implant bone levels around single implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

Objective

To systematically review literature about the effect of different implant‐abutment interface designs on peri‐implant bone level changes, implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa changes around single implants in the anterior maxilla. Reviewing three connection configurations: Platform switched conical (PS‐conical); Platform switched parallel (PS‐parallel); Platform matched parallel (PM‐parallel).

Methods

A detailed search was carried out in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Open Gray and African journals Online (until December 1, 2020) and was restricted to clinical prospective studies of at least 1 year and with at least 10 human participants. A meta regression analysis was carried out primarily on the pooled peri‐implant bone level changes followed by implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa level change. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 and ROBINS‐I. The manuscript complied with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: 225092).

Results

A total of 5513 hits gave 44 eligible articles for the analyses. Bone level change did not differ significantly between the two platform switched connections; their bone loss scores were significantly lower than PM‐connection. The PS‐conical connections have significantly lower implant losses than the PM connection. Mid‐buccal mucosa level change was comparable between the three connection configurations. Moderate to high risk of bias was detected in the included studies.

Conclusions

The performance of PS‐conical and PS‐parallel connection configurations both favored bone loss scores compared to the PM‐parallel connection configuration. All three demonstrated mid‐buccal mucosa changes that were small and did not differ significantly amongst the groups.