Treatment of Postextraction Sites With Allograft-Stabilized Dental Implants: A Clinical Case Series

Management of Advanced Peri-Implantitis by Guided Bone Regeneration in Combination with Trabecular Metal Fixtures, Two Months after Removal of the Failed Implants: Two-Year Results of a Single-Cohort Clinical Study

Background: Implant replacement is among the treatment options for severe peri-implantitis. The aim of this single-cohort study was to evaluate the feasibility of replacing compromised implants affected by advanced peri-implantitis with new implants with a porous trabecular metal (TM) structure. Materials and Methods: Patients with one or more implants in the posterior region showing a defect depth >50% of implant length, measured from the residual crest, were consecutively included. Two months after implant removal, patients received a TM implant combined with a xenograft and a resorbable membrane. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured at placement and re-assessed five months later (at uncovering), then after 6, 12, and 24 months of function. Marginal bone loss was radiographically evaluated. Results: Twenty consecutive cases were included. One patient dropped out due to COVID-19 infection, and nineteen cases were evaluated up to 24 months. At placement, the mean ISQ was 53.08 ± 13.65 (standard deviation), which increased significantly to 69.74 ± 9.01 after five months of healing (p < 0.001) and to 78.00 ± 7.29 after six months of loading (p < 0.001). Thereafter, the ISQ remained stable for up to 24 months (80.55 ± 4.73). All implants successfully osseointegrated and were restored as planned. After two years, the average marginal bone level change was -0.41 ± 0.38 mm (95% confidence interval -0.60, -0.21), which was limited yet significantly different from the baseline (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The treatment of advanced peri-implant defects using TM implants inserted two months after explantation in combination with guided bone regeneration may achieve successful outcomes up to two years follow-up, even in the presence of low primary stability.

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. Materials and Methods: The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. Results: An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference (p = 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous (p = 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older (p = 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks (p = 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations (p = 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.