Analysis of 435 screw-vent dental implants placed in 161 patients: software enhancement of clinical evaluation

Design and Evaluation of Web-Based Dental Implant Registry (DIR) for Better Clinical Outcomes

Introduction

Identification of dental implant system in undocumented patients is a major challenge for dentists due to the vast variety of tools and technologies that are used in dental care. It also takes a long time to identify the type of connection or length and diameter of implant. To obtain accurate and timely information, it is necessary to have a Dental Implant Registry (DIR). In the present study, a DIR was designed, developed, and evaluated at the Dental Implant Research Center of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Materials and Methods

This is an applied, developmental, and cross-sectional study that was conducted between 2018 and 2020. In the present study, after determining the objectives of DIR system, its conceptual model was designed by EDraw Max 7.9 software. Then, the registry was developed in Visual Studio 2018 environment with the C# programming language and, finally, it was evaluated by Nielsen's ten principles of usability assessment.

Results

After creating the registry, its data entry search and report functions were tested. Also, in the exploratory evaluation, the highest number of problems related to the principles of system clarity and compatibility between the system and real world was identified.

Conclusion

The web-based DIR created in C# programming language has the ability to gather data, provide report with different access levels, and send text messages to patients for follow-up. This tool enables physicians to quickly identify the components of dental implant. The web-based DIR also provides support for health research, quality assessment, and dental performance assessment.

Dental Implants Inserted in Fresh Extraction Sockets versus Healed Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present review aimed to evaluate the difference of dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) between implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets or healed sites. Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus manual search of journals, including studies randomized or not. Meta-analyses were performed besides meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. The review included 163 publications. Altogether, there were 17,278 and 38,738 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites, respectively. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that implants in sockets had a higher failure risk in comparison to healed sites: OR 1.349, all studies included; OR 2.070, only prospective non-RCTs; OR 2.487, only RCTs (all p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 1.616, p = 0.029), but not in the mandible (OR 2.192, p = 0.075). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was −0.053 mm (p = 0.089). There was an estimated decrease of 0.003 in OR (p = 0.284) and an increase of 0.006 mm (p = 0.036) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up. In conclusion, implants placed in fresh extraction sockets present higher risk of failure than implants placed in healed sites.

Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate if the internal connection is more efficient than the external connection and its associated influencing factors.

METHODS

A specific question was formulated according to the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO): Is internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? An electronic search of the MEDLINE and the Web of Knowledge databases was performed for relevant studies published in English up to November 2013 by two independent reviewers. The keywords used in the search included a combination of "dental implant" and "internal connection" or "Morse connection" or "external connection." Selected studies were randomized clinical trials, prospective or retrospective studies, and in vitro studies with a clear aim of investigating the internal and/or external implant connection use.

RESULTS

From an initial screening yield of 674 articles, 64 potentially relevant articles were selected after an evaluation of their titles and abstracts. Full texts of these articles were obtained with 29 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Morse taper connection has the best sealing ability. Concerning crestal bone loss, internal connections presented better results than external connections. The limitation of the present study was the absence of randomized clinical trials that investigated if the internal connection was more efficient than the external connection.

CONCLUSIONS

The external and internal connections have different mechanical, biological, and esthetical characteristics. Besides all systems that show proper success rates and effectiveness, crestal bone level maintenance is more important around internal connections than external connections. The Morse taper connection seems to be more efficient concerning biological aspects, allowing lower bacterial leakage and bone loss in single implants, including aesthetic regions. Additionally, this connection type can be successfully indicated for fixed partial prostheses and overdenture planning, since it exhibits high mechanical stability.

A retrospective study on a series of 556 zimmer dental implants

Background:

One-stage surgery with immediate loading is possible, with good clinical results. Many types of dental implants are available in the market. Zimmer Dental Implants (ZDIs) have been used since the nineties, but few reports have analyzed the clinical outcome of these fixtures. We planned a retrospective study on a series 566 ZDIs, to evaluate their clinical outcome.

Materials and Methods:

In the period between January 2007 and June 2011, 125 patients were treatetd with ZDIs. The last check-up was performed in June 2012, with a mean follow-up period of 17 ± 9 months (minimum – maximum, 8-4 months). ZDIs were inserted as follows: 295 (53.1%) in the maxilla and 261 (46.9%) in the mandible. There were 480 (86.3%) Screw-vents, 51 (9.2%) Swiss Plusses, and 25 (4.5%) Splines. Sixteen, 355, 34, 90, 55, and six fixtures had a diameter of 3.25, 3.7, 3.75, 4.1, 4.7, and 4.8 mm, respectively. Twenty-eight, 145, 5, 217, 8, 141, and 12 implants hade a length of 8, 10, 11, 11.5, 12, 13, and 14 mm, respectively. The implants were inserted to replace 136 (24.5%) incisors, 80 (14.4%) cuspids, 198 (35.6%) premolars, and 142 (25.5%) molars.

Results:

No implants were lost (i.e., SRV = 100%). Among the studied variables, only those for the jaws were statistically significant, with a better outcome for implants inserted in the maxilla (P = 0.017).

Conclusions:

ZDIs are reliable devices to be used in implantology, althougth a higher marginal bone loss has to be expected when these implants are inserted in mandible.

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of 835 Multithreaded Tapered Screw-Vent Implants: Results After Two Years of Functional Loading

Multithreaded tapered screw implants have been used for several years, but lack of clinical documentation about marginal bone stability and survival rates have raised concerns about the design among some clinicians. This study prospectively evaluated the survival rates, success rates, and marginal bone stability of multithreaded tapered screw implants. A total of 835 implants in diameters of 3.7 mm (9%), 4.7 mm (76%), and 6.0 mm (15%) were placed in 328 patients using a single-stage, delayed-loading protocol. The implants were restored with a variety of prostheses and monitored over 2 years of functional loading. Five implants failed and were removed before loading. Cumulative implant survival was 99.4% (n = 835); differences between mandibular (99.0%, n = 408) and maxillary (99.8%, n = 427) implants were not statistically significant (P > .20). Mean marginal bone resorption was 1.66 mm (+/- 0.13 mm). Six implants failed to meet the success criteria by sustaining mesial and distal bone loss below the first implant thread; however, they remained stable and continued functioning without pain or inflammation. Cumulative implant success was 98.6% (n = 835); differences between maxillary (98.6%) and mandibular (98.8%) implants were not statistically significant (P > .20). Success rates by implant diameter were 98.6% (3.7 mm), 98.4% (4.7 mm), and 100% (6 mm). After 2 years of functional loading, survival and success rates for multithreaded tapered implants placed in a nonsubmerged protocol equaled or surpassed those of single-thread, straight-walled implant historical controls.