Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth as a risk-indicator for peri-implant disease-A cross-sectional study

Periodontal conditions of teeth adjacent to dental implants with or without peri-implantitis after non-surgical therapy in patients treated for periodontitis: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively assess the periodontal conditions of teeth adjacent to and contralateral to implants presenting with or without peri-implantitis, following non-surgical periodontal and peri-implant mechanical therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and one patients with existing dental implants and chronic periodontitis, who underwent non-surgical periodontal and peri-implant mechanical therapy, were included. The periodontal clinical probing depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at six sites around the adjacent (Adj-) teeth and the contralateral (CL-) teeth relative to the implant. The potential factors influencing the periodontal conditions of 316 teeth were analyzed by multivariate linear regression models with generalized estimating equation methods and α = .05.

RESULTS

The PPD of Adj-teeth was significantly different from that of CL-teeth before and after non-surgical therapy when the implant was diagnosed with peri-implantitis (PI) (p < .05). The PPD of teeth was shown to be affected by neighboring implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis (β = .825 mm, p < .001), teeth adjacent to implants (β = .245 mm, p = .004), a molar tooth type (β = .435 mm, p = .019), and non-surgical therapy (β = -.522 mm, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively compromised periodontal conditions at Adj-teeth after non-surgical PI therapy were detected. Therefore, clinicians should be aware that non-surgical therapy may be less successful at teeth adjacent to implants with PI.

Interproximal contact loss between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age, gender, follow-up time, and arch location.

METHODS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "What is the prevalence of the ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth?" The search strategy used four main electronic databases and an additional manual search was performed until February 2023. Clinical studies that evaluated the prevalence of interproximal open contact between implant restorations and adjacent teeth were included. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. In addition, a single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the percentage of mesial versus distal open contact and total ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2023 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented ICL rates higher than 20%. All studies evaluated ICL in posterior regions (molar, premolar area). Five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50% and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. One study assessed the interproximal contact at three months post-restoration insertion, four studies assessed the interproximal contact at 1-year follow-up and nine studies evaluated the interproximal contact over 2 years of follow-up. Mesial and distal ICL rates were 44.2% (95% CI: 30.6% to 58.6%) and 27.5% (95% CI: 10.5% to 55.0%), respectively. The heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 (95% CI) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the included studies, the prevalence of ICL was high, occurring more frequently at the mesial contact. There were no significant differences in relation to age, gender, and arch location.

Repositioning accuracy of the implant- and abutment-level prosthetic components used in conventional and digital workflows

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the repositioning accuracy of the implant- and abutment-level impression components (impression abutments and implant scan bodies) and implant abutments (with and without anti-rotational hex index); also, to estimate the tightening torque influence on the positional stability of abutments.

METHODS

Seven types of prosthetic components (n = 7) [impression pick-up copings (PC), implant scan bodies (ISB), non‑hex and hex titanium base implant abutments (TB H and TB NH), multi-unit impression copings (MU PC), multi-unit implant scan bodies (MU ISB), and multi-unit caps (MU C) (Medentika GmbH)] were tested. For repositioning accuracy tests a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used. During assembly 15 Ncm torque for all components was applied. After measurement, only hex and non‑hex abutments were torqued to 25 Ncm and their coordinates were again recorded to assess torque influence. The procedure was repeated 7 times for each component. Linear and 3D deviations, angulation to the vertical axis, and axial rotation were calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the measurements between the groups. A post-hoc test (Mann-Whitney U test) was used for pairwise comparison to determine the influence of the torque (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Implant- and abutment-level components used for digital scans showed different positional discrepancies compared to ones used for conventional impressions and ranged from 10 to 37 µm. Hex abutments demonstrated statistically significantly lower 3D deviations (4.4 ± 7.1 µm) compared to non‑hex abutments (8.7 ± 6.1 µm). Torque influence was significantly lower for hex abutments than for non‑hex abutments.

CONCLUSIONS

Repositioning inaccuracies were found in all implant- and abutment-level impression components (impression abutments and implant scan bodies) and all abutments (with and without anti-rotational hex index) tested. Final tightening of the components could cause further positional discrepancies.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The misfit of the prosthetic components used in conventional and digital workflows stays in the clinically acceptable range. Even when multiple connections and disconnections on the track of the laboratory preparation is needed, it should not have a negative influence for single teeth reconstructions. However, in the complex cases with multiple implants, repetitive repositioning of the prosthetic components may lead to the accumulation of vertical, horizontal and rotational errors leading to the clinical problems with the passive fit of the final framework.

Assessment of titanium release following non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding. Initial treatment involves non-surgical debridement of the implant surface. Recent studies have found a correlation between titanium (Ti) particle release and peri-implantitis, yet there is a dearth of information regarding the effect of various non-surgical instrumentation on particle release or peri-implantitis resolution.

METHODS

Patients with peri-implantitis were recruited for a randomized, blinded, parallel-group clinical trial. The implants were randomized to treatment composed of Ti curettes ("Mech" group) or implant-specific treatment composed of rotary polymer microbrushes ("Imp" group). Ti release in submucosal peri-implant plaque pre- and 8 weeks posttreatment was assessed as the primary outcome. Peri-implant probing depth, bleeding on probing, and suppuration on probing were evaluated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants completed treatment; 18 were randomized to the Mech group and 16 to the Imp group. The groups were comparable for Ti levels and probing depths at baseline. A trend was noted for 10-fold greater Ti dissolution in the Mech group posttreatment compared to the Imp group (p = 0.069). The Imp group had a significant reduction in probing depth posttreatment (p = 0.006), while the Mech group reduction was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Peri-implantitis treated non-surgically with implant-specific instruments (Imp group) had a significantly greater decrease in probing depth versus the Mech treatment group. This improvement was linked with a trend for less Ti release to the peri-implant plaque by the non-abrasive treatment.

Application in the analysis of the occlusal force of free-end missing tooth implant restoration with T-SCAN III

Introduction: The occlusal force of the teeth in the dental arch and the remaining adjacent natural teeth will change after implant restoration with a free-end missing tooth. This study intends to use the T-SCAN III scanner to collect dynamic quantitative data before and after the restoration of free-end implants and to explore the application of the T-SCAN III in redistributing the occlusal force of free-end implants.

Methods: In this study, 24 patients with free-end implant restoration were selected, and their occlusion was tested before, immediately after, and 3 months after implant restoration.

Results: In all 24 cases, the bite force of the first natural tooth adjacent to the implanted tooth after restoration changed from 19.12% ± 9.48%–12.93% ± 11.47% (p &lt; 0.01). For additional data analysis, all cases were further subdivided by single implant and fixed bridge restorations. In 17 cases, there was a successful follow-up after 3 months. The percentage of the total bite force of dental arch with implant increased from 41.92% ± 10.78%–53.06% ± 10.71% (p &lt; 0.01).

Discussion: This study shows that the free-end implant restoration protects the remaining natural teeth, and the patient’s missing dental arch bite force improves within 3 months of implant restoration.

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of proximal contact loss and its associated factors. Methods. A bibliographic search was conducted in June 2021 with no limitation in the article date or language and updated in January 2022 by hand searching. There was no time limit on the search to retrieve all studies. The search included randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments, and cross-sectional or cohort studies were included in the absence of these studies. Two authors screened the title and abstract. After evaluating the full texts of selected articles, irrelevant studies and or non-English papers that were impossible to translate were excluded. Disagreements between the re-viewers' selection process were resolved by debate on the eligibility of studies. Standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute for different types of studies were used to assess the studies' quality. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (Version 2.2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used for data analysis. Results. The proximal contact loss (PCL) frequency was %29. According to the results, the frequencies of PCL for the distal and mesial aspects were %7 and %21, respectively. The meta-analysis results showed that the contact loss events on the mesial aspect were statistically higher than on the distal aspect (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences between other associated factors such as the mandibular or maxillary arch, retention type, opposing dentition, implant type, molar or non-molar, parafunction behaviors, and vitality of adjacent teeth. There was a significant association between bone loss and PCL, and in individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher (OR: %95[ 2.43 CI: 4.03‒1.47], P=0.0006). The PCL in the anterior area was lower than in the posterior area (P=0.004). Although the frequency of contact loss in females was higher than in males, this rate was not statistically significant. Conclusion. The PCL on the mesial aspect and the posterior area was high. In individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher than in others.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2021 dental literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to coverage of this broad topical area. Specific subject areas addressed, in order of the appearance in this report, include COVID-19 and the dental profession (new); prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence daily dental treatment decisions with an emphasis on future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published daily, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. Rather, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater details on their own. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in negotiating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the patients and dental problems they encounter.