A 5 to 7-year case series on single angulated implants installed following papilla-sparing flap elevation

Screw loosening in angulation-correcting single implant restorations: A systematic review of in vitro studies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Various options are available to allow angle correction for screw-retained restorations for malaligned implants, including angled abutments, angled screw channel abutments, and angled implants. However, the effect these angle correction components have on prosthetic screw loosening is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effect of angled abutments, angled screw channel abutments, and angled implants on prosthetic screw loosening.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This manuscript followed the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Searches were performed through 31 December 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science with no year limit targeting in vitro studies evaluating the effect of angulation correction components on screw loosening.

RESULTS

A total of 460 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 306 titles were screened. Nine of the remaining 36 articles selected for full-text analysis met the selection criteria. The qualitative analysis used data from 394 implants. All studies featured straight abutments as the control group, and, in 8 studies, the angle correction component was included on the level of the abutment. Only in 1 study was the angle correction component at the level of the implant. The angle correction of the prosthetic component varied from 0 degrees in all studies up to a maximum correction of 30 degrees. Statistically significant increases in screw loosening with increasing abutment angle correction were reported by multiple authors (P<.05). However, other articles reported nonsignificant differences in screw loosening because of angulation after cyclic loading (P>.05). The only study investigating angle correction at the implant level found significantly less screw loosening (P<.05) in the angled implant group compared with the nonangled implant group.

CONCLUSIONS

Several options are available to correct discrepancies between the surgical axis and the ideal prosthetic axis for rehabilitations supported by dental implants. The current evidence does not clearly indicate the superiority of any single solution for minimizing screw loosening.

Dental Implants with External Hex Inclined Shoulder in Full-Arch Immediate Loading Rehabilitations of the Maxilla

Background: Coaxial implants with an inclined neck might overcome some problems related to angulation of the implant axis when using tilted implants. Therefore, the aim of the present work was to conduct a narrative review of the current literature and to present a case series comparing traditional and coaxial external hex implants in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations of the maxilla. Methods: A total of 13 external hex tapered implants (Southern Implants) was inserted in the upper jaw of 3 patients. Each patient received two tilted implants in distal sites. In one randomly selected quadrant, the tilted implant was a standard implant, while a Co-Axis® implant with a 24° inclination of the implant shoulder was inserted on the other hemi-arch. Straight conical abutments were screwed on coaxial implants while multiunit abutments of appropriate inclination were screwed as needed on the other implants to correct their axes. Peri-implant bone level was recorded radiographically at T0 (delivery of the immediate loading prosthesis), and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of healing and then annually. Plaque index, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were also evaluated. Cumulative implant survival rate (CSR) was calculated, and biological or technical complications were recorded as well as the operator satisfaction towards the use of coaxial implants. Results: The preliminary data collected did not show significant differences in peri-implant tissues health and maintenance over time between the two implant types. No implants failed, and both implant types proved to be favorable for full-arch rehabilitation using tilted implants. Coaxial implants facilitated the prosthodontic procedures. However, a learning curve is required in order to optimize their insertion. Conclusions: Both implants proved to be reliable and suitable for achieving clinical success in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations, but further research with longer follow-up and larger sample size is needed to confirm these preliminary outcomes.

Soft tissue metric parameters, methods and aesthetic indices in implant dentistry: A critical review

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to provide an overview of soft tissue metric parameters, methods, and aesthetic indices in implant dentistry. The secondary objective was to describe reliability and validity of aesthetic indices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to October 2020 to identify studies on soft tissue metric parameters, methods, and aesthetic indices. Aesthetic indices were evaluated in terms of reliability and validity. Data extraction was performed by the same reviewers.

RESULTS

Five metric parameters (papilla height, linear changes in soft tissue level, color assessment, soft tissue thickness, and profilometric soft tissue changes) registered by means of several methods (intra-oral registrations, radiographic assessments, digital analyses, and ultrasonic assessments), and 15 aesthetic indices (Papilla Index (PI), ad hoc questions scored with Visual Analogue Scales, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), Implant Aesthetic Score (IAS), Rompen Index, Subjective Esthetic Score, White Esthetic Score, Copenhagen Index, Complex Esthetic Index, Californian Dental Association Index (CDAI), Peri-Implant, and Crown Index, Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score, Implant Restoration Esthetic Index (IREI), and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI)) could be identified. With respect to metric parameters and methods, intra-oral registrations were least accurate whereas profilometric soft tissue changes on the basis of digital surface models were most accurate. Six aesthetic indices showed good inter-rater reliability (PI, PES, ICAI, CDAI, IREI, and MSI). Good validity could only be shown for two indices (PES and CEI). Given this and on the basis of ease of use and ease of interpretation, PES qualified best for clinical research on single implants. None of the indices fulfilled the quality criteria for clinical research on multiple implants.

CONCLUSION

Many soft tissue assessment methods with varying reliability and validity have been described and used, which hampers uniform reporting in implant dentistry. Clinical investigators are advised to measure linear and profilometric soft tissue changes using digital surface models, and to use a reliable and validated aesthetic index. Currently, PES qualifies best for aesthetic evaluation of single implants. An index is to be developed to assess the aesthetic outcome of rehabilitations on multiple implants.