Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: a 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study

OBJECTIVES

To report the clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed Narrow-Diameter Implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors (MLIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal Crestal Bone Level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The aesthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen Index Score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants Ø2.9mm (n = 50) or Ø3.3mm (n = 50) were included. One Ø3.3mm implant was lost and 7 patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.342). Good to excellent aesthetic scores (i.e. 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e. loss of retention, abutment fracture, chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = 0.110).

CONCLUSION

The use of Ø2.9mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as Ø3.3mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.

Comparison of the residual cement on custom computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconia abutments: A preliminary cohort study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical studies comparing the occurrence and quality of residual cement between custom zirconia and custom titanium abutments with subgingival margins are scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the difference in the amount of residual cement between custom zirconia and titanium abutments with a 1-mm subgingival margin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty participants were randomized to receive either a custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert or a custom titanium abutment with a 1-mm subgingival margin on a posterior bone-level implant. Monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with a screw-access hole were cemented to abutments randomly with either a resin-modified glass ionomer cement or a resin cement. After cementation, the crown-abutment assemblies were removed and photographed from the mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual of the specimen to record the residual cement. The length along the abutment margin of each aspect of the assembly was measured. The surface area of the residual cement (SA) and the surface area of the residual cement per unit length of margin (SA_P) were calculated. Results for the groups were compared with the Fisher exact test, the Friedman test, and the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The median (lower quartile, upper quartile) of SA and SA_P for the custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert was 1.9 (0.5, 3.9) mm² and 0.086 (0.032, 0.02) mm², respectively, and for the custom titanium abutment, the values were 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) mm² and 0.138 (0.062, 0.239) mm², respectively. No significant difference was found between the custom zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts and titanium abutments for SA (P=.075) and SA_P (P=.083) with the Mann-Whitney U test. No significant difference was found in residual cement between the 4 aspects of the abutment (SA: P=.852; SA_P: P=.954) with the Friedman test and between the 2 types of cement (SA: P=.447; SA_P: P=.878) with the Mann-Whitney U test.

CONCLUSIONS

A similar amount of subgingival residual cement was recorded around the abutment-crown assembly, regardless of the abutment material or cement type used.

Cleaning Efficacy of Poly-ether-ether-ketone Tips in Eliminating Cement Remnants Around Implants With Different Abutment Heights

The excess cement not removed after the cementation of fixed implant-supported restorations may cause loss of peri-implant attachment or adjacent bone. The aims of this study were to evaluate the amount of residual cement at different abutment-crown connection levels and to test the cleaning efficacy of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) ultrasonic tips after cementation. One implant was placed in an anterior central tooth position 5 mm below the gingival margin in an acrylic model, and 32 stone models were obtained with implant analogs. Abutment heights of 1-2 and 2.5-4 mm were used on the vestibular and lingual sides, respectively. Crowns were cemented and cleaned, and half of the samples were cleaned again using PEEK tips. The abutment-crown suprastructure was then disconnected, and cleaning efficacy was evaluated. Varying amounts of excess cement were found on all specimens except for the PEEK group with abutment-crown connections 1 mm below the gingival margin. An increase of undetected cement remnants was observed when the restoration margins were located deeper subgingivally. Various amounts of excess cement associated with margin location were detected on the abutment-restoration complex despite meticulous cleaning efforts. Ultrasonic PEEK tips were effective at cleaning the cement remnants around implants to a certain depth.

Zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM: a five-year follow-up prospective clinical study of 9 patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate clinical results of the passive fit of the substructure in the Toronto bridge and the chipping or delamination of the ceramic veneering on the zirconia-support, after 5 years, in nine patients rehabilitated with zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM technology.

METHODS

A total of nine healthy patient fully edentulous in the upper and lower jaws with non-contributory past medical anamnesis needing full fixed total prosthesis maxilla and mandible were included in this clinical study, where a total 9 mandibles and 9 jaws were treated. The inclusion criteria in order for a patient to participate in the study were: a signed consent form, fully edentulous in the upper and lower jaws, required a full fixed total prosthesis restoration. The exclusion criteria were age limitation of less than 18 years old, chemotherapy, head and neck radiation therapy, diabetes or periodontal disease, smoking and severe illness. All patients received zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM technology. The primary outcome of this study was to examine the survival rate of the zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bars using CAD/CAM technology during the observation period. Any chipping or delamination of the zirconia crowns of the restorations was considered as failure. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the passive fit of the substructure on the implants, loose of occlusal screws, implant survival and satisfactory occlusion.

RESULTS

In 5 years of follow-up no evidence of chipping or delamination of the ceramic veneering on the zirconia crown supported were observed. Fifteen finished protesis (93.75%) showed satisfactory occlusion and only one case (6.25%) required significant occlusal adjustment. During the first year recall all bars were stable (100%) no mobility of protheses was recorded. After 5 years all bars were stable (100%) and no mobility of protheses was recorded.

CONCLUSION

The computerized workflow for the process of building bar and prosthesis ensures reproducible results and excellent adaptation and passive insertion of them, as well as conditions for avoiding mechanical complications and guarantees stability of screw-implant abutments.

Effects of precementation on minimizing residual cement around the marginal area of dental implants

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Residual cement is detrimental to the long-term success of dental implants with a cement-retained restoration. The complete elimination of excess cement remains a challenge.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of precementation technique on minimizing the residual cement and retention of restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four custom cobalt-chromium alloy (Co-Cr) abutments were manufactured by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) as precementation abutments with height and radius reductions of 25 μm (A25), 50 μm (A50), 75 μm (A75), and 100 μm (A100). Fifty CAD-CAM-fabricated standard Co-Cr abutments and corresponding crowns were randomly matched and treated as follows: 10 specimens were cemented with the conventional cementation procedure with glass ionomer cement (G0), and 40 were precemented with precementation abutments (n=10) before the definitive cementation with standard abutments (G25, G50, G75, G100). The weight of the cement in the cement space was calculated, and the marginal sealing was evaluated by using a stereoscopic microscope. The effects of precementation with resin cement on minimizing residual cement around the marginal area of dental implants were further evaluated extraorally. The influence of precementation with glass ionomer and resin cement on the retention force was analyzed by using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze cement mass and marginal sealing values. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the retention forces (α=.05).

RESULTS

The cement weight of G50 (7.2 ±0.6 mg) was significantly higher than that of G25 (6.0 ±1.1 mg, P<.05), while no significant differences in cement weights were found among G50, G75, and G100. Consistently, the G50, G75, and G100 had higher marginal sealing values than that of the G25 (P<.01). Extraoral experiments showed that the precementation with A50 reduced subgingival residual cement without affecting retention.

CONCLUSIONS

These in vitro results suggest that precementation with a precisely manufactured precementation abutment minimized the residual cement around implant abutments, and 50 μm could be a preferable precementation space.

What is the Best Available Luting Agent for Implant Prosthesis?

Cement-retention is a viable option in restoring dental implants. A wide range of dental cements with different properties are commercially available for use in the cementation of implant prostheses. The selection of a dental cement for proper clinical application can be challenging. This article overviews the commercially available dental cements used in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. Guidelines for cement selection are presented according to abutment and prosthetic material. Cementation techniques to reduce excess cement in peri-implant tissues are also mentioned.

Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches: A systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches.

METHODS

The relevant articles were retrieved from MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and EBSCO electronic databases for articles published from January 1995 to January 2016 and were restricted to randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective studies on human subjects that were reported in English. A further hand search was conducted on individual journals and reference list of the articles found. Reviewed studies which reported retention failures in fixed implant-supported prostheses using screw and cement retention mechanism. Information on the type and nature of restoration, as well as different luting cement, were also collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles were finalized, 20 short-term clinical studies (up to 5 years) and 13 long-term studies (≥5 years). Out of 33 studies, 16 studies were included in meta-analysis, 8 in short-term and 8 in long-term studies. The results of the meta-analysis for short-term studies showed statistically significant difference between cement-retained and screw-retained prosthesis, with the forest plot favoring cement-retained prostheses (risk ratio [RR]: 0.26; confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.74; P < 0.0001; I2 = 79%). In long-term studies, the forest plot revealed statistically significant difference between both retention systems favoring cement-retained prostheses (RR: 0.31; CI: 0.13-0.76; P = 0.03; I2 = 56%).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of the short- and long-term studies shows lesser retention failures with cement-retained prostheses when compared to screw-retained prostheses. Further, multicentric, high-quality randomized controlled studies with long-term observations and modified cementation protocols can yield higher grades of recommendation to avoid retention failures.

MasterOnline Periodontology and Implant Therapy-revisited after seven years: A case study of the structures and outcomes in a blended learning CPD

INTRODUCTION

There is a great need for postgraduate training and continuing professional development (CPD), specifically in the field of periodontology. Despite the plenty of periodontal CPDs, there is a lack of information about the performance of CPDs in a blended learning setting. This study is a case study of the structures and outcomes in a blended learning CPD programme in periodontology, the MasterOnline Periodontology and Implant Therapy hosted by the University of Freiburg's Dental School.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The structures of the blended learning CPD were analysed with the aims to (i) make explicit how various innovative educational methods and ICT tools can be successfully applied to a Web-supported postgraduate periodontology training programme, (ii) identify the programme's impact on learning transfer in students' dental practices and (iii) identify other outcomes, synergies and any changes required during the existence. Using qualitative interviewing, the various types of learning transfer and elements of the study programme that foster transfer could be exemplified.

RESULTS

A period of 7 years was analysed. In this duration, 50 students successfully graduated to a master of science. Qualitative interviews were performed with six students and four teachers affirming the learning transfer in a blended learning setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study shows that blended learning can be a successful approach for CPD in dentistry.

Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.