Retrospective study on the clinical outcomes of small-diameter implants supporting fixed prostheses without bone augmentation in the posterior region after 2 to 12 years

Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the diameter of implants inserted in the posterior area affects implant survival rate, prosthetic survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD)).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of studies published until December 2021 was done on three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane) independently by two authors. Clinical trials comparing implant survival rate, BoP, MBL and PPD among narrow diameter implants (NDI: ≥ 3.0 mm to < 3.75 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDI ≥ 3.75 mm to < 5 mm) were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for non-randomized ones. A pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted on the included studies.

RESULTS

Seven articles were included out of the 4291 identified from the digital research. Overall, a total of 939 implants were inserted (319 NDI, 620 RDI). Only one study was judged at serious risk of bias. No statistically significant difference was found in implant survival rate (risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI [0.98 to 1.04], P = 0.67)) while the difference was significant for BoP (mean difference 2.89 (95% CI [0.30 to 5.48] mm, P = 0.03)) with higher values for NDI. Higher MBL was identified among regular diameter implants (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI [-0.32 to 0.01 mm], P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were identified for prosthetic survival and PPD.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in implant survival rate between narrow and regular implants. A higher BoP was identified among narrow implants, but there was no higher bone loss. It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior region.

Immediate loaded fixed complete dentures supported by implants in patients with a history of periodontitis: A retrospective cohort study of 2 to 7 years

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The outcome of implant-supported fixed complete dentures in edentulous patients with a history of periodontitis is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to assess the clinical outcomes of immediate loaded fixed complete dentures in individuals with a history of periodontitis and to analyze risk factors related to implant failure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 642 implants (146 prostheses) in 119 patients were included. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 7 years. Implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, mechanical complications, biologic complications, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test, independent samples t test, and multivariate generalized estimating equation were performed for statistical analysis (α=.05).

RESULTS

Eleven implants in 9 patients failed, leading to overall survival rates of 98.3% at the implant level and 92.4% at the patient level. The mean ±standard deviation marginal bone loss was 0.62 ±0.86 mm, and marginal bone loss did not differ significantly between axial and tilted implants (P>.05). Mechanical complications were detected in 55 (37.7%) definitive prostheses; biologic complications were detected in 318 (49.5%) implants. Smokers had a significantly lower survival rate than nonsmokers (odds ratio: 6.880, P=.013). Bruxers had a significantly higher incidence of mechanical complications than nonbruxers (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The immediate loaded fixed complete denture supported by implants is a suitable treatment option for edentulous patients with a history of periodontitis, with high survival implant rates. Smoking is a risk factor for implant failure. Bruxism may increase the incidence of mechanical complications with implant-supported fixed complete dentures, and the overall biologic complication incidence is comparatively high.

Microbial profiles of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: Submucosal microbial dysbiosis correlates with disease severity

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the microbiome characteristics of peri-implant mucositis (PM) and peri-implantitis (PI), and to analyse the correlation between disease severity and submucosal microbial dysbiosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was conducted. Submucosal biofilm samples from 27 PM sites and 37 PI sites from 64 patients were collected and analysed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Illumina). Differences in microbiological profiles between PM and PI were evaluated using the α-diversity, β-diversity and linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis. The relative abundances of the taxa at the phylum and genus levels were compared using the Wilcoxon rank test and logistic regression. The microbial dysbiosis index (MDI) was calculated, and its relationship with clinical measurements (probing depth, bleeding on probing and marginal bone loss, among others) was analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The overall microbiome distribution in the PM and PI sites was similar according to α- and β-diversity. Twenty-three taxa at the genus level and two taxa at the phylum level showed significant differences in relative abundance between the two clinical classifications. Five taxa at the genus level were screened out for the MDI calculation after logistic regression. No clinical measurements but marginal bone loss showed a significant positive correlation with microbial dysbiosis.

CONCLUSION

The microbiome richness, diversity and distribution were similar in PM and PI sites, including both common periodontal bacteria and novel species. In addition, an increase in marginal bone loss was significantly associated with submucosal microbial dysbiosis.