Performance of the Straumann Bone Level Implant system for anterior single-tooth replacements in augmented and nonaugmented sites: a prospective cohort study with 60 consecutive patients

Effectiveness, Esthetics, and Success Rate of Dental Implants in Bone-Grafted Regions of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Congenital clefts impair function and appearance, thus impacting a patient's social and mental health. A multidisciplinary team that can offer comprehensive treatment from infancy through maturity and beyond can successfully address these abnormalities. Dental rehabilitation is very important for these patients; these abnormalities should be identified and must be treated accordingly. Hence it is of utmost importance to know the success rate and changes in quality of life from patient satisfaction in order to plan future treatment goals when coming across such cases. The aim of this article is to determine success rate, esthetics, and patient satisfaction in implant-based oral rehabilitation in bone-grafted regions of cleft patients. Registration was carried out in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review) with registration number CRD42022329861 on May 7, 2022. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms such as cleft lip, cleft palate, survival rate, and dental implants were used to handpick articles via an electronic database. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to compile all the data gathered from an electronic database. According to the collected data, 93.5% of the survival rate with dental implants was noted irrespective of the type of bone grafts used. Also, improvement in quality of life was achieved in these patients. Effectiveness, esthetics, and success rate are very well achievable with implants in cleft patients. Although the aesthetics are not equivalent to that of dental implants in normal patients, patient satisfaction is still satisfactory in patients with dental implants in bone-grafted regions of cleft lip and palate.

Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and digital panoramic radiography for detecting peri-implant alveolar bone changes using trabecular micro-structure analysis

Objectives

We compared changes in fractal dimension (FD) and grayscale value (GSV) of peri-implant alveolar bone on digital panoramic radiography (DPR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) immediately after implant surgery and 12 months postoperative.

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective study, 16 patients who received posterior mandibular area dental implants with CBCT scans taken about 2 weeks after implantation and one year after implantation were analyzed. A region of interest was selected for each patient. FDs and GSVs were evaluated immediately after implant surgery and at 12-month follow-up to examine the functional loading of the implants.

Results

There were no significant differences between DPR and CBCT measurements of FD values (P>0.05). No significant differences were observed between FD values and GSVs calculated after implant surgery and at the 12-month follow-up (P>0.05). GSVs were not correlated with FD values (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The DPR and reconstructed panoramic CBCT images exhibit similar image quality for the assessment of FD. There were no changes in FD values or GSVs of the peri-implant trabecular bone structure at the 12-month postoperative evaluation of the functional loading of the implant in comparison to values immediately after implantation. GSVs representing bone mass do not align with FD values that predict bone microstructural parameters. Therefore, GSVs and FDs should be considered different parameters for assessing bone quality.

Restoration of a wide edentulous posterior site with two small-diameter implants: Biologically-driven alternative treatment

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Crestal bone stability, implant rigidity and occlusal loading are issues with small-diameter implants. This article demonstrates the use of two small-diameter implants replacing a missing wide edentulous site and discusses factors that may affect bone changes.

METHODS

Patients who wanted to restore an edentulous space measuring from 12 to 14 mm wide in the posterior region were offered an alternative treatment option, using two narrow or regular-diameter implants instead of one wide implant. In the study, the crestal bone stability of 12 implants in 6 edentulous sites was assessed by cone beam CTs and periapical radiographs in follow-up visits for up to 4 years.

RESULTS

The bone level of all the implants was stable at buccal, lingual, mesial and distal sites, with mean values < 1 mm. The average buccal bone thickness was 1.15 ± 1.07 mm and lingual was 1.86 ± 0.89 mm, meaning that implants were surrounded by a sufficient amount of bone. The good treatment outcome may be attributed to the capability of fabricating better emergence profiles, angles (Mean: 20.67 ± 7.82° at the mesial and 20.25 ± 8.23° at the distal site) and cleansable embrasures of prostheses which are key to maintaining good oral hygiene and implant health.

CONCLUSION

Using two narrow or regular-diameter implants to replace a single edentulous site measured around 12-14 mm wide in posterior region seemed to be a feasible treatment option. It is especially suitable for sites with ridge atrophy and/or patients suffering from systemic diseases.

Peri-implant and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns using zirconia abutments in single implant-supported restorations-A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the peri-implant tissue changes and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone using zirconia abutments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed on nine databases. The risk-of-bias was assessed by the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized (RoB 2) and non-randomized (ROBINS-I) clinical trials. Marginal bone level change, soft tissue thickness, bleeding on probing, probing depth, survival rates of implants and crowns, complications, plaque and papilla indexes, and pink esthetic score data were extracted and analyzed. The certainty of evidence was accessed through the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Nine records were included and 7 were used in the meta-analyses. Screw-retained crowns presented greater marginal bone level change (MD -0.04 [-0.08, -0.00] p = 0.04, I²  = 0%) compared to cemented crowns up to 1-year. At 3 and 4 years no significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed. Soft tissue thickness did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The bleeding on probing was higher in cemented group than in screw-retained crowns at 1-year (MD 0.17 [0.08, 0.27] p = 0.0005, I²  = 0%), at medium-term periods (3 and 4 years) no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for this outcome. Probing depth, survival rates of implants and crowns, complications, and plaque index, as well as esthetic analysis using the papilla index and pink esthetic score did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) between both retention systems at short and medium-term periods.

CONCLUSION

The connection system considering zirconia abutments presented no influence on peri-implant parameters and esthetics evaluation for medium-term periods (3 and 4 years).

Bone loss-related factors in tissue and bone level dental implants: a systematic review of clinical trials

Dental implants are popular for dental rehabilitation after tooth loss. The goal of this systematic review was to assess bone changes around bone-level and tissue-level implants and the possible causes. Electronic searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, and a hand search limited to English language clinical trials were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines up to September 2020. Studies that stated the type of implants used, and that reported bone-level changes after insertion met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was also evaluated. A total of 38 studies were included. Eighteen studies only used bone-level implants, 10 utilized tissue-level designs and 10 observed bone-level changes in both types of implants. Based on bias assessments, evaluating the risk of bias was not applicable in most studies. There are vast differences in methodologies, follow-ups, and multifactorial characteristics of bone loss around implants, which makes direct comparison impossible. Therefore, further well-structured studies are needed.

Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.03; P=0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference -0.51mm, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.26mm; P=0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; P=0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P=0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic.

Dental implant placement in alveolar cleft patients: a retrospective comparative study on clinical and aesthetic outcomes

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the clinical and aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction, following dental implant therapy in cleft patients. Implant survival, changes in marginal bone level, pocket probing depths, plaque and bleeding indices, aesthetics, and patient satisfaction were assessed in 17 alveolar cleft patients and 17 matched controls. At follow-up (mean 72.4±46.4 months), one implant had been lost in the cleft group. Mean marginal bone loss at follow-up was -0.4±0.4mm in cleft patients and -0.2±0.4mm in controls. Aesthetics of the peri-implant soft tissues (pink aesthetic score) were less favourable (P=0.025) in cleft patients (5.0±1.9) than in controls (6.5±1.7), while peri-implant parameters were comparable in the two groups. Overall patient satisfaction was 8.6±0.9 in cleft patients and 8.9±1.1 in controls (P=0.331). In cleft patients, no difference in aesthetics was observed between patients who received additional bone augmentation at 3 months prior to implant placement and those who did not (P=0.092). Dental implant therapy in cleft patients is associated with high implant survival, minor marginal bone loss, healthy peri-implant soft tissues, and high patient satisfaction. Only the aesthetics of the soft tissues was worse in cleft patients compared to augmented non-cleft patients.

Performance of bone-level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5-year prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, and satisfaction of patients treated with single implant restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region 5 years after final restoration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty patients (29 male/31 female, mean age 37 years) with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla (39 central incisors/10 lateral incisors/5 cuspids/6 first premolars) received a bone-level implant with conical connection. In 29 patients, a bone augmentation procedure was necessary before implant placement (autogenous bone grafts mixed with spongiosa granules). All implants (12 with 3.3 mm diameter/ 48 with 4.1 mm diameter) were loaded after 3 months of submerged healing. The restoration consisted of an individually designed full-zirconia abutment veneered with porcelain. Follow-up with clinical and radiographic assessment was conducted until 60 months after the final restoration. Aesthetic outcome of the restoration was determined with the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). Patient satisfaction was assessed with a VAS scale and satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

Fifty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100%, restoration survival 98%. Mean bone-level change was -0.13 ± 0.66 mm with a median (IQR) pocket probing depth of 2.75 [2.25; 3.25]. The mean PES and WES scores were 6.6 ± 1.7 and 7.8 ± 1.5, respectively. Patient satisfaction was high (92.1 ± 7.8 on 100 mm VAS scale). There were no differences between patients with or without a bone augmentation procedure.

CONCLUSION

Bone-level implants with a conical connection are a reliable treatment option in single-tooth replacements in the maxillary aesthetic zone.

Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To compare the longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter (≤3.3-mm) versus standard-diameter implants supporting single crowns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and SciELO databases were searched for relevant publications. In addition, the scientific references provided by each of the implant companies that appeared in the search were reviewed. Intervention studies comparing longevity and bone loss between narrow-diameter and standard-diameter implants were included.

RESULTS

The search was limited to in vivo studies in humans. The query returned 1931 results, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. The implant success rate ranged from 93.8% to 100% over a maximum follow-up of 3 years, with no difference between narrow- and standard-diameter implants. Meta-analysis of all included studies showed greater bone loss in narrow-diameter implants as compared with standard ones; however, when analysis was restricted to randomized trials, no such difference was present.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed no difference in longevity between narrow implants and standard implants when supporting single crowns. However, narrow-diameter implants may be associated with greater marginal bone loss. These findings should be regarded cautiously due to the short follow-up duration and methodological heterogeneity of the primary studies.

Patient-reported outcome measures focusing on aesthetics of implant- and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence on patient-reported aesthetic outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported, relative to tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In April 2017, two reviewers independently searched the Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane electronic databases, focusing on studies including patient-reported aesthetic outcomes of implant- and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Human studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 1 year, a minimum of ten patients, and English, German, or French publication were included. For the comparison of subgroups, random-effects meta-regression for aggregate-level data was used.

RESULTS

The systematic search for implant-supported prostheses focusing on patient-reported outcomes identified 2,675 titles, which were screened by two independent authors. Fifty full-text articles were analyzed, and finally, 16 publications (including 19 relevant study cohorts) were included. For tooth-supported prostheses, no studies could be included. A total of 816 implant-supported reconstructions were analyzed by patients. Overall aesthetic evaluation by the patients' visual analogue scale (VAS) rating was high in implant-supported FDPs (median: 90.3; min-max: 80.0-94.0) and the surrounding mucosa (median: 84.7; min-max: 73.0-92.0). Individual restorative materials, implant neck design (i.e., tissue or bone level type implants), and the use of a fixed provisional had no effect on patients' ratings of the definitive implant-supported FDPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Aesthetics is an important patient-reported measure, which lacks in standardized methods; however, patients' satisfaction was high for implant- supported FDPs and the surrounding mucosa.

Zirconia abutments in the anterior region: A systematic review of mechanical and esthetic outcomes

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The success of single, anterior, implant-supported restorations relies on mechanical and esthetic outcomes. Titanium has been the most commonly used material for abutments, but zirconia is increasingly chosen for its appearance despite its unclear mechanical performance. Today, manufacturers market prefabricated, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) custom and zirconia abutments with titanium connections.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the mechanical and esthetic outcomes of implant zirconia abutments used in the anterior region, considering the design changes of the past 5 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in Medline (PubMed) for studies on zirconia abutments. All clinical studies with at least a 1-year follow-up and case series (>5 abutments) published after 2013 were included. Mechanical and esthetic outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 231 retrieved studies, 20 remained for quantitative analysis. Twelve described mechanical outcomes, and 15 focused on esthetics, using mainly the pink esthetic score. Five articles reported abutment fractures and no chipping. No difference was found between prefabricated and custom abutments or internal and external implant connections regarding fractures or screw loosening. All authors reported "good to excellent" esthetic integration in terms of restorations and soft-tissue color and the presence and height of papillae. The most difficult esthetic parameters to achieve were root convexity, soft-tissue color, and texture and level of mucosa.

CONCLUSIONS

Esthetics remain the major advantage of zirconia abutment when compared with titanium, despite reservations concerning the risk of mechanical complications. Data are lacking for zirconia abutments with titanium inserts, although the prospects for this design are promising.

Evaluation of the influence of implant placement timing on the esthetic outcomes of single tooth implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the influence of implant placement timing on the esthetic outcomes for single implants in the anterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and ten patients (48 males; 62 females) who received a single-tooth implant after extraction either immediately (Type 1); after 4-8 weeks (Type 2); after 8-16 weeks (Type 3); or more than 16 weeks (Type 4) were evaluated in terms of esthetic outcomes after a mean post-placement interval of 26.3 months (range 12-116). Esthetic outcomes were measured using the Pink and White Esthetic Score (PES; WES). Stepwise regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of timing of placement, as well as patient demographics and other clinical parameters on the esthetic outcomes.

RESULTS

No statistically significantly differences in PES were found between the various treatment modalities with Type 1 implants (n = 33) scoring 10.58 ± 1.65 (median: 11), followed by 10.36 ± 2.09 (median: 10.5), 9.68 ± 2.43 (median: 10), and 9.63 ± 2.21 (median: 10) for Type 2 (n = 14), Type 3 (n = 19), and Type 4 (n = 44), respectively. For immediate implants, a trend towards better esthetic outcomes was observed when implant placement was done flaplessly in cases with intact buccal bone (Type 1A, median PES 11) as compared to cases with partial/complete missing buccal plates where a flap was raised (Type 1B, median PES 10). Overall, the only parameter that influenced esthetic outcomes (as measured by PES) was gender, with females having significantly superior results. The median WES was 8 and 96% of the crowns were deemed esthetically acceptable, with crowns placed by specialist prosthodontists yielding higher scores than those placed by general practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

Single tooth implants in the anterior maxilla showed satisfactory outcomes when measured with objective esthetic criteria. Timing of implant placement did not significantly influence the esthetic outcomes, although a trend towards better outcomes was seen with immediate implant placement as observed by higher median PES values.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Single tooth implant placement in the anterior maxilla is a predictable treatment modality for achieving acceptable esthetic outcomes regardless of the timing of placement.

The effect of resorbable membranes on one-stage ridge augmentation in anterior single-tooth replacement: A randomized, controlled clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the effect of resorbable membranes on one-stage ridge augmentation procedures in small (2-4 mm) buccal bony dehiscences in anterior maxillary single-tooth replacement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a buccal bony dehiscence after implant placement in the esthetic zone were randomly allocated to one-stage ridge augmentation with (M+) or without a membrane (M-). Second-phase surgery was performed after 8 weeks, and follow-up was performed 1, 6, and ≥12 months after loading. Outcomes included implant survival and success, complications, clinical and radiographic parameters, esthetic results and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were randomized to one-stage ridge augmentation with (n = 25) or without use of a membrane (n = 27). No significant differences in implant survival and success have been observed. The risk of having a small mucosal dehiscence was more than six times higher in the M+ group than in the M- group (RR 6.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 48.21). At the last follow-up, the bleeding index (BI) was marginally higher in the M+ group (14/9/2/0) compared to the M- group (24/2/0/0) (U = 205, Z = -2.97, p = .003, r = .42). The median change in marginal bone level was statistically lower in the M+ group (0.06 mm) than the M- group (0.60 mm) at last follow-up (U = 120, Z = -2.73 a p = .006 r = .42). Total pink esthetic index (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) and combined PES/WES were not significantly different between treatment groups at more than 12 months after loading. Only the subcategory root convexity/soft tissue color scored significantly lower in the M+ group (1.5) compared to the M- group (2.0) at the last follow-up (U = 172, Z = -2.34, p = .019 r = .34). No differences were found in patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The use of a resorbable membrane in small buccal bony dehiscences in anterior maxillary single-tooth replacement resulted in less marginal bone loss, but showed more mucosal dehiscences, higher bleeding scores and lower scores on root convexity and soft tissue color after at least one year of loading. No effect was seen on implant survival and success, overall esthetic results, and patient satisfaction. The research protocol was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR) with ID NTR6137.

Bone-level implants placed in the anterior maxilla: an open-label, single-arm observational study

Purpose

This study assessed marginal bone remodeling and soft tissue esthetics after the loading of single bone-level implants in the anterior maxilla.

Methods

An open, single-arm observational clinical trial with 3 years of follow-up was performed, including 22 implants. The patients presented with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla (tooth positions 14–24), with natural or restored adjacent teeth. An implant was placed at least 8 weeks post-extraction and healed submerged for 6 weeks. After the second-stage operation, a fixed provisional prosthesis was provided. The final restoration was placed 6 months after the provisional restoration. The time of the provisional crown connection was considered to be the baseline in this study. Esthetic parameters and the marginal bone level were assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.

Results

All implants were well integrated in the bone. A statistically significant increase was found in the mean implant stability quotient between the time of the provisional prosthesis and the time of the final prosthesis. Most implants (95.5%) revealed marginal bone resorption (<0.5 mm), and just 1 implant (4.5%) showed a change of 2.12 mm from baseline to 36 months (mean 0.07±0.48 mm), while the crestal bone level decreased significantly, from 2.34±0.93 mm at baseline to 1.70±1.10 mm at 36 months. The facial gingival margin and papilla were stable and the esthetic scores indicated high patient and dentist satisfaction.

Conclusions

Platform-switching bone-level implants placed in maxillary single-tooth gaps resulted in successful osseointegration with minimal marginal bone resorption. The peri-implant soft tissue was also esthetically satisfying and stable.

A Current Perspective on Screw-Retained Single-Implant Restorations: A Review of Pertinent Literature

OBJECTIVE

There is a trend toward increased use of screw-retained single-implant restorations. A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to examine the data related to screw- and cement-retention and to objectively evaluate the innovations in implant dentistry that have led to this resurgence.

OVERVIEW

When comparing the two options, survival and complication rates are similar, bone and soft-tissue levels are comparable, and zirconia offers esthetic advantages for both selections. Zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts provide esthetic alternatives to titanium abutments for both choices. Bone- and soft-tissue responses are similar, but residual cement of cement-retained restorations is associated with significant soft- and hard-tissue complications. The potential weakness of ceramic discontinuity of screw-access openings can be lessened by the incorporation of stronger ceramic materials such as zirconia and lithium disilicate. The overriding remaining indication for cement-retained restorations is to compensate for angled implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Screw-retained single-implant crowns should be reconsidered for many clinical situations for the following reasons: Predictable retention and retrievability No potential for the biologic consequences associated with residual cement As with cement-retained restorations, the choice between metal ceramics or all ceramics Only one margin, at the implant/abutment interface A single abutment/crown ceramic margin that can extend gingivally to the implant interface Nearly imperceptible blend of a composite resin in ceramic abutment access openings One component instead of two, which may simplify the restorative process CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Innovations in implant and ceramic technology now give screw-retained prostheses the potential for esthetic, functional, and biologic outcomes that are comparable to those for cement-retained prostheses, while providing the advantages of predictable retrievability and avoidance of residual cement. Angled implants, however, remain a major indication for cement-retained single-implant prostheses. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:161-171, 2017).

Long-term Stability of Soft Tissue Esthetic Outcomes Following Conventional Single Implant Treatment in the Anterior Maxilla: 10-12 Year Results

Purpose:

The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term stability of esthetic outcomes of soft tissue around maxillary anterior single-tooth implants after 10-to-12 years of loading.

Methods:

Patients who had been treated for single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla between February 2000 and July 2002 were invited to participate in the study. All implants had been placed according to delayed implant placement and conventional loading protocols without any connective tissue graft or papilla preservation flaps. Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was rated using standardized clinical photographs to assess the esthetic outcomes of the implant treatment at the time of crown placement and at time of follow-up examination which was at least 10 years after the crown placement.

Results:

A total of 19 patients were included. The mean score of PES was 11.63 (SD 1.61; range 7-14) at baseline. After 10-to-12 years of function, a mean PES score of 11.05 (SD 2.09; range 6–14) was recorded. No significant differences were found in the esthetic outcomes, categorized based on clinically relevant levels, between the baseline and follow-up session (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

Within limitation of the present study, it can be concluded that the esthetic outcomes of soft tissue around the maxillary anterior single-tooth implants placed using conventional implant placement technique remained stable in the long-term.

Rehabilitation of the severely atrophied dentoalveolar ridge in the aesthetic region with corticocancellous grafts from the iliac crest and dental implants

Background

The aim of this study was to assess changes in bone volume after block bone augmentation and placement of dental implants and further evaluate the aesthetic outcome of the treatment.

Material and Methods

9 Patients with atrophied anterior maxilla were included in this study. They received total of 21 implants. Dimensions of the alveolar ridge were measured from cone-beam computed tomography x-rays. The bone level at the implant sites was analysed from intraoral x-rays and the aesthetic outcome was assessed from clinical photographs using a pink aesthetic score (PES) scaling.

Results

The mean gained horizontal bone width at the marginal crest and 5 mm apically was accordingly 2.7mm and 5.0 mm. The mean PES rating was 9.8/14. The survival rate of.

Conclusions

Reconstruction of the atrophied anterior maxilla with bone blocks and dental implants is a safe procedure with high survival rate and acceptable aesthetic outcome.

Key words:Dental implants, aesthetic region, corticocancellous bone grafts, pink aesthetic score, survival rate.

Aesthetic outcome of immediately restored single implants placed in extraction sockets and healed sites of the anterior maxilla: a retrospective study on 103 patients with 3 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic outcome of single implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges of the anterior maxilla by means of the pink aesthetic score/white aesthetic score (PES/WES) index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data from 103 patients (43 males, 60 females) aged 24-65 years (mean age 41.4 ± 13.8 years) who had been successfully treated with a single implant in the anterior maxilla, in four different clinical centres. Forty-two patients (mean age 46.5 ± 15.1 years) were treated with a single implant in a fresh post-extraction socket (immediate implant treatment, IIT), while 61 patients (mean age 38.0 ± 11.8 years) were treated with a single implant in a healed site (conventional implant treatment, CIT). Two independent calibrated examiners applied the PES/WES index to the 103 single-tooth restorations, respectively 3 months and 3 years after implant placement.

RESULTS

A few biological (4.8%) and prosthetic (8.7%) complications were reported. Both IIT and CIT yielded satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. At the delivery of the final restoration, a PES/WES score of 16.6 ± 2.6 and 15.7 ± 3.0 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was not statistically significant. A higher decrease in the PES/WES score was observed with CIT over time. At 3 years, a PES/WES score of 16.4 ± 2.8 and 15.2 ± 3.3 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was statistically significant. IIT seemed to yield better aesthetic outcomes in young patients (≤30 years), with implants placed in central incisor/cuspid areas, in the presence of bone contouring.

CONCLUSIONS

Both immediate and conventional single-implant treatment in the anterior maxilla can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes, when performed by experienced clinicians in well-selected cases. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Immediate Single-Tooth Implant Placement in Bony Defects in the Esthetic Zone: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess, with regard to marginal bone level (MBL), whether the outcome of immediate implant placement in bony defects in the esthetic zone was non-inferior to delayed implant placement after 1 year.

METHODS

Forty patients with a failing tooth in the esthetic zone and a labial bony defect of ≥5 mm after removal of a tooth were randomly assigned for immediate (n = 20) or delayed (n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and provisionalization occurred after 3 months of healing. Follow-up was at 1 month and 1 year after definitive crown placement. The study was powered to detect a difference in MBL of >0.9 mm. Buccal bone thickness, soft tissue peri-implant parameters, esthetic indices, and patient satisfaction were also assessed.

RESULTS

One year after definitive crown placement, MBL loss was 0.56 ± 0.39 mm mesially and 0.74 ± 0.51 mm distally for the immediate placement group and 0.51 ± 0.43 mesially and 0.54 ± 0.45 distally mm for the delayed placement group, respectively (not significant). Regarding differences in means, non-inferiority was observed after 1 year (difference in mean for immediate versus delayed: mesially 0.04 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.22 to 0.30 mm, P = 0.40]; distally 0.21 mm [95% CI = -0.10 to 0.51 mm, P = 0.58]). No significant differences in the other outcome variables were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement with delayed provisionalization was non-inferior to delayed implant placement with delayed provisionalization in labial bony defects of ≥5 mm regarding change in MBL. Although not powered for other outcome variables, no clinically relevant differences were observed in these variables.

Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

No consensus has been reached on which retention system, cement- or screw-retained, is best to avoid bone loss around the implant of a fixed implant-supported restoration.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare cement- and screw-retained retention systems in fixed implant-supported restorations in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of studies published from January 1995 to March 2015 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Marginal bone loss was the continuous outcome measure evaluated by mean difference (MD), and implant survival and prosthetic complications were the dichotomous outcome measures evaluated by risk ratio (RR), both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The 20 studies selected for review evaluated 2139 participants, whose mean age was 47.14 years and who had received 8989 dental implants. The mean follow-up was 65.4 months (range: 12-180 months). Results of the MD for marginal bone loss showed statistically significant differences in favor of the cement-retained prosthesis (P =.04; MD: -0.19; CI: -0.37 to -0.01). The implant survival rate was higher for the cement-retained prosthesis (P =.01; RR: 0.49; CI: 0.28 to 0.85), and the prosthetic complication rate was higher for the screw-retained prosthesis (P =.04; RR: 0.52; CI: 0.28 to 0.98). Additional analysis of the mean plaque index did not show differences between retention systems (P=.58; MD: 0.13; CI: -0.32 to 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis indicated that cement-retained, fixed implant-supported restorations showed less marginal bone loss than screw-retained, fixed implant-supported restorations during the follow-up period, which ranged from 12 to 180 months. However, the small difference between the mean values may not show clinical significance. The rates of prosthetic complication and implant survival also compared favorably with cement-retained prostheses.

Feasibility of immediate placement of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a 1-year randomized controlled trial

AIM

To assess whether outcome of immediate implant placement and immediate provisionalization after 1 year was non-inferior to immediate implant placement and delayed provisionalization regarding Marginal Bone Level (MBL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients with a failing tooth in the aesthetic zone were randomly assigned for immediate implant placement with immediate (n = 20) or delayed (n = 20) provisionalization. Follow-up was at 1 month and after 1 year. The study was powered to detect a difference in MBL of <0.9 mm. Apart from MBL, soft tissue peri-implant parameters, aesthetic indexes and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

After 1 year, MBL changes were -0.75 ± 0.69 mesially and -0.68 ± 0.65 distally mm for the immediate group and -0.70 ± 0.64 and -0.68 ± 0.64 mm for the delayed group respectively (NS). Regarding differences in means, non-inferiority was observed after 1 year (mesially: Group A versus B: difference in mean 0.08 mm (95% CI -0.38 to 0.53, p = 0.71 distally: Group A versus B: difference in mean 0.09 mm (95% CI -0.37 to 0.56 mm, p = 0.66).No significant differences in the other outcome variables were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that immediate placement and immediate provisionalization was non-inferior to immediate placement with delayed provisionalization. In addition, although not powered for these outcome variables, no clinically relevant differences in other outcomes were observed (www.isrtcn.com: ISRCTN57251089).

Mechanical resistance of screwless morse taper and screw-retained implant-abutment connections

OBJECTIVE

The screwless morse taper (SMT) implant-abutment connection is an alternative to conventional external or internal screw-retained (ISR) connections. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate mechanical resistance of the SMT connection and to compare it with three different ISR connections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four implant systems were tested in this study: SMT system; Tasarimmed Octo (Istanbul, Turkey), ISR systems; Straumann Bone Level (Basel, Switzerland), Biohorizons Internal (Birmingham, AL, USA), and Dentsply Friadent Xive (Mannheim, Germany). Overall, 64 specimens with stylized single crowns were prepared: 32 for dynamic loading (DL) and 32 for static loading (SL). DL was carried out using a chewing simulator with 120 N at 1.75 Hz for 1.2 × 10(6) cycles, and SL was performed with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min with an angulation of 30°. Cycles until failure from DL and fracture/bending loads at SL were recorded. Statistical analyses were made with Dunn's multiple comparison.

RESULTS

Median cycles until failure in DL were as follows: Octo 86,354 (24,810-153,875), Straumann 1,200,000 (1,156,618-1,200,000), Biohorizons 539,719 (437,224-858,732), Xive 139,411 (139,411-139,411). Median fracture/bending loads in Newton at SL were as follows: Octo 429.6 (404.5-482.7), Straumann 574.6 (544.6-629.9), Biohorizons 548.7 (532.9-567.3), Xive 431.5 (412.5-520.5). There were significant differences between the implant systems under both loading conditions (P ≤ 0.05) revealing that the Octo implant system's SMT connection showed significantly lower cycles to failures and lower fracture/bending loads compared with the ISR connections of the Straumann and Biohorizons implant systems. However, there was no significant difference compared with the Xive implant system.

CONCLUSION

The mechanical resistance of the screwless morse taper implant system is lower than that of the ISR implant systems that might result in more frequent clinical complications.