Prospective clinical trial evaluating a new implant system for implant survival, implant stability and radiographic bone changes

Multicentre Prospective Study Analysing Relevant Factors Related to Marginal Bone Loss: A Two-Year Evolution

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this prospective descriptive study was to analyse the possible variables associated with marginal bone loss in rehabilitated implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain) two years after their prosthetic loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three clinical centres collaborated for a period of two years after the prosthetic rehabilitation of the implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain), in which marginal bone loss and the possible associated variables were evaluated. The collection form comprised different variables throughout different stages of the implant procedure, from implant insertion to the subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation, over a two-year period. Data of the patients and implant characteristics were studied. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for qualitative (univariate logistic regressions, Chi2 test, and Haberman's corrected standardised residuals) and quantitative variables (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).

RESULTS

The total study sample consisted of 218 implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain). The sample presented a frequency of 99 men (45.4%) and 119 women (54.6%). The mean age of the patients among the reported cases was 58.56 ± 10.12 years. A statistically significant association was found between marginal bone loss 2 years after prosthetic rehabilitation placement and several variables, including age (under 55 years, 0.25 mm ± 0.56; 55-64 years, 0.74 mm ± 0.57; over 65 years, 0.63 mm ± 0.55; p < 0.0001), gender (female, 0.74 mm ± 0.61; male, 0.34 mm ± 0.51; p < 0.0001), bone quality (D1, 0.75 mm ± 0.62; D2, 0.43 mm ± 0.57; D3, 0.65 mm ± 0.60; p < 0.01), implant diameter (up to 4 mm, 0.49 mm ± 0.58; more than 4 mm, 1.21 mm ± 0.30; p < 0.0001), prosthetic connection type (direct to implant, 0.11 mm ± 0.58; transepithelial straight, 0.67 mm ± 0.57; transepithelial angled, 0.33 mm ± 0.25; p < 0001), implant model (internal conical, 0.17 mm ± 0.24; external conical, 0.48 mm ± 0.61; external cylindrical, 1.12 mm ± 0.32; p < 0.0001), prosthetic restoration type (full denture, 0.59 mm ± 0.59; partial denture, 0.50 mm ± 0.85; unitary crown, 0.08 mm ± 0.19; p < 0.05), and insertion torque (>35 N/cm, 0.53 mm ± 0.58; <35 N/cm, 1.04 mm ± 0.63; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

At 2 years, marginal bone loss following prosthetic rehabilitation was shown to be influenced by multiple factors. Correct implantological planning is of vital importance for successful rehabilitation.

Marginal bone level change during sequential loading periods of partial edentulous rehabilitation using immediately loaded self-tapping implants: a 6.5-year retrospective study

PURPOSE

A large number of studies have suggested the practicability and predictability of immediate implant function, but few studies have reported marginal bone level changes during sequential loading periods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal bone remodeling of immediately loaded self-tapping implants both at each time point and during each loading period between two time points.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients included in this retrospective study were treated with immediately loaded NobelSpeedy Replace implants between August 2008 and July 2009. Differences in the marginal bone level (MBL) at each time point and the marginal bone level change (ΔMBL) between two time points were analyzed with Bonferroni correction (P < .05).

RESULTS

Overall, 24 patients (mean age, 47.3 ± 12.8 years) with 42 immediately loaded implants and a median follow-up of 6.5 years (IQR, 67.8 months) were included. The cumulative survival rate after 10 - 12 years was 95.2%. Continuous but slow marginal bone loss was observed during long-term follow-up. MBL at both 7.5 years and 11 years was significantly lower than that at loading, 6 months, 2 years and 4 years (P < .05). No bone loss difference was found in any period before 4 years of follow up (P > .05). The loading period of 4 years to 7.5 years showed the largest ΔMBL compared to those of other time periods (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Slight bone loss occurred continuously, and more radical changes of marginal bone can be observed during the period of 4-7.5 years. Thus, long-term effective follow-up of immediately loaded implants is needed.

An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study

To evaluate implant loss (IL) and marginal bone loss (MBL); follow-up period of up to 10 years after prosthetic loading. Retrospective multi-centre cross-sectional cohort study. Double analysis: (1) all the implants (n = 456) were analysed; (2) to allow for possible cluster error, one implant per patient (n = 143) was selected randomly. Statistical analysis: Spearman's correlation coefficient; Kruskal-Wallis (post-hoc U-Mann-Whitney); Chi-square (post-hoc Haberman). (1) Analysing all the implants (456): IL was observed in patients with past periodontitis (6 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.05), short implants (12 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001) and when using regenerative surgery (11.3 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001); greater MBL was observed among smokers (0.39 ± 0.52 vs. 0.2 ± 0.29, p < 0.01), maxillary implants (0.28 ± 0.37 vs. 0.1 ± 0.17, p < 0.0001), anterior region implants (0.32 ± 0.36 vs. 0.21 ± 0.33, p < 0.001), external connection implants (0.2 ± 0.29 vs. 0.63 ± 0.59, p < 0.0001), and 2-3 years after loading (p < 0.0001). (2) analysing the cluster (143): IL was observed in smokers (18.8 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.05), splinted fixed crowns (12.9%, p < 0.01), short implants (22.2 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.01) and when using regenerative surgery (19.2 vs. 3.4%, p < 0.01); greater MBL was observed in maxillary implants (0.25 ± 0.35 vs. 0.11 ± 0.18, p < 0.05), in the anterior region (p < 0.05), in the first 3 years (p < 0.01), in external connection implants (0.72 ± 0.71 vs. 0.19 ± 0.26, p < 0.01) and in short implants (0.38 ± 0.31 vs. 0.2 ± 0.32, p < 0.05). There is greater risk in smokers, patients with past periodontal disease, external connection implants, the use of short implants and when regenerative techniques are used. To prevent MBL and IL, implantologists should be very meticulous in indicating implants in patients affected by these host factors.

Clinical Performance of Short Expandable Dental Implants for Oral Rehabilitation in Highly Atrophic Alveolar Bone: 3-year Results of a Prospective Single-Center Cohort Study

Background and Objectives: Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) is compromised during the post-implant healing period, especially when vertical augmentation is required. A long-term trial sought to evaluate a short dental implant system with an apically expandable macro-design. Materials and Methods: Over 4.5 years, patients with limited vertical alveolar bone were consecutively recruited into this prospective cohort study. Implant success rate, OHRQOL (Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14), implant stability, and crestal bone changes were evaluated. Results: Data from 30 patients (mean age: 64.6 years, range 44–83) were analyzed, which related to 104 implants (53 in the maxilla, 51 in the mandible). Over the mean follow-up (42.6 ± 16.4 months), the implant success rate was 94.7% in the mandible (two implants lost) and 83.6% in the maxilla (four implants lost; p = 0.096), and the prosthetic success rate was 100%. The median OHIP-14 scores improved from 23 (interquartile range (IQR) 9–25.5) to 2 (IQR 0–5; p < 0.001). The mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) was 71.2 ± 10.6 for primary stability and 73.7 ± 13.3 (p = 0.213) for secondary stability, without significant maxilla-versus-mandible differences (p ≥ 0.066). Compared to the baseline, median crestal bone changes after loading were 1.0 mm (IQR 0–1.3) and 1.0 mm (IQR 0.2–1.2) in the maxilla and mandible (p = 0.508), respectively, at the end of the first year, 1.1 mm (IQR 0–1.3) and 1.0 mm (IQR 0.1–1.2) (p = 0.382), respectively, at the end of the second year, and 1.2 mm (IQR 0–1.9) and 1.1 mm (IQR 0.1–1.2) (p = 0.304), respectively, at the end of the third year. Conclusions: In patients with limited vertical bone height, short implants with optimized macro-design constitute a reliable method for functional rehabilitation, avoiding extensive alveolar bone augmentation.

Analysis of marginal bone loss and implant stability quotient by resonance frequency analysis in different osteointegrated implant systems. Randomized prospective clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present prospective clinical study is to compare the stability of the implant-bone interface by the ISQ quotient and marginal bone loss (MBL) rate during one year of follow-up in four system implants with the same surface and different design.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective randomized clinical trial of 21 patients in which four implant systems with the same surface and different design were placed. Patients were treated by the same operator following a similar surgical protocol with submerged technique. The second surgery to perform the prosthesis was performed at 3 months. All patients went to their review at 6 months and a year. A periapical radiograph for crestal bone analysis and an Implant stability quotient by resonance frequency analysis (ISQ) analysis were taken at baseline and the reviews.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found in the Implant stability quotient by resonance frequency analysis and Marginal Bone Loss in the four types of implants. The ISQ increased from the moment of insertion of the implant until the revision to the year, showing an increase of the stability implant, being this increasing less between the 6 months and the year.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the design of the four implants tested in this study did not show statistically significant differences in any of the variables studied, so the implant design does not influence implant stability and marginal bone loss in the first year after placement.

Do short implants have similar survival rates compared to standard implants in posterior single crown?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Short implants have been presented as an option for posterior rehabilitation in cases of poor bone height.

PURPOSE

To compare the survival rate of short implants and standard implants when used in posterior single crowns, in addition to reporting marginal bone loss, prosthetic failures, and surgical complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic search (PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) and hand search were performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that evaluated both short and standard implants in posterior single crowns.

RESULTS

Out of 345 articles identified by both electronic and hand search, four studies were selected (one CCT and three RCTs). The meta-analysis for the survival rate showed that there was no significant difference between the short implants and the standard ones (P = 1.00; RR:1.00; CI:0.97-1.03) performed with three RCTs for a one-year follow-up. The mean marginal bone loss ranged from 0.1 mm to 0.54 mm. Only one study reported the presence of prosthetic failures and surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival rate of short implants was similar to the standard ones in posterior single crowns, for the one-year follow-up period. They also presented low surgical complications, prosthetic failures and marginal bone loss, being a predictable treatment for single rehabilitation in posterior tooth loss.

Evaluation of the effects of different sand particles that used in dental implant roughened for osseointegration

BACKGROUND

Successful dental implant treatment is directly related to osseointegration. In achieving osseointegration, the surface property of the implant is of great importance. Sandblasting is the most commonly used basic method for modifying the surface. Many companies use different sand particles for surface roughening and claim their sand is the best. This leads clinicians to mix their minds in product selection. In this study, we tried to find the appropriate sand material by working objectively without praising any brand. We believe that the results of the study will help clinicians choose the right dental implant. In this study, machined-surfaced implants and implants sandblasted with Aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃), Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) and Silicon dioxide (SiO₂) were compared via biomechanical testing.

METHODS

For the study, four 2 year-old sheep, weighing 45 kilograms (kg), were used. Eight implants (Al₂O₃, TiO₂, and SiO₂ sandblasted implants and machined-surfaced implants), each with different surface characteristics, were inserted into the bilateral tibia of each sheep under general anesthesia. Results of the initial Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) were recorded just after implant insertion. The sheep were then randomly divided into two groups, each with 2 sheep, to undergo either a 1-month or a 3-month assessment. At the end of the designated evaluation period, RFA and removal torque tests were performed.

RESULTS

Although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, the implants sandblasted with Al₂O₃ showed a higher Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and removal torque value at the end of the 1st and 3rd month.

CONCLUSIONS

In short, the results of the study demonstrate that Aluminum oxide is superior to other sand particles.

Novel expandable short dental implants in situations with reduced vertical bone height-technical note and first results

PURPOSE

Short implants often have the disadvantage of reduced primary stability. The present study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new expandable short dental implant system intended to increase primary stability.

METHODS

As a "proof of concept", a prospective clinical cohort study was designed to investigate intraoperative handling, primary and secondary implant stability (resonance frequency analysis), crestal bone changes, implant survival and implant success, of an innovative short expandable screw implant. From 2014 until 2015, 9 patients (7-9-mm vertical bone height) with 30 implants (length 5-7 mm, diameter 3.75-4.1 mm) were recruited consecutively.

RESULTS

All 30 implants in the 9 patients (age 44 to 80 years) could be inserted and expanded without intraoperative problems. Over the 3-year follow-up period, the implant success rate was 28/30 (93.3%). The mean implant stability quotients (ISQ) were as follows: primary stability, 69.7 ± 10.3 ISQ units, and secondary stability, 69.8 ± 10.2 ISQ units (p = 0.780), both without significant differences between the maxilla and mandible (p ≥ 0.780). The mean crestal bone changes after loading were (each measured from the baseline) as follows: in the first year, 1.0 ± 0.9 mm in the maxilla and 0.7 ± 0.4 mm in the mandible, and in the second year, 1.3 ± 0.8 mm and 1.0 ± 0.7 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other prospective studies, in this indication, the success rate is acceptable. Implant stability shows high initial and secondary stability values. The system might present an extension of functional rehabilitation to the group of elderly patients with limited vertical bone height. Further long-term investigations should directly compare this compressive implant with standard short implants.

Survival analysis of wide dental implant: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Wide-diameter implants are frequently placed in molar sites to obtain appropriate restoration profiles, to rescue implants that lack stability, and to engage bone in extraction sites. However, studies of wide-diameter implant placement have provided conflicting evidence regarding clinical outcomes. This systematic review aims to analyze survival rates of wide-diameter implants (platform diameter ≥5 mm) and assess clinical variables potentially affecting failure rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE from January 1980 to October 2014. Publication screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. Failure rate per implant-year was analyzed using mix-effects Poisson regression model to obtain summary estimates of the 5-year survival rate. Relative risk (RR) was calculated to evaluate the association of different clinical variables with estimated failure rates.

RESULTS

Eleven retrospective studies and eight prospective studies having at least 1-year follow-up period were included in the analysis. The estimated 5-year survival rate was 92.67% (95% confidence interval: [79.60, 97.50]) in the retrospective studies and 97.76% (Confidence interval: [93.25, 99.27]) in the prospective studies. Implant surface and implant diameter were significantly associated with the failure events in the retrospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of wide-diameter implants demonstrated a promising survival rate during 5-year follow-up. Further controlled trials with the control group and longer follow-up period are needed to provide the direct evidence comparing survival rates of wide implants with survival rates of narrower implants.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of new dental implant system: Results of a 3-year prospective study

Background/purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate implant survival, crestal bone level changes, and clinical parameters of IDcam dental implants over a mean follow-up period of 3 years.

Materials and methods

Seventy-two patients, 32 females and 40 males, received 255 implants. Implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed restorations were inserted. Following completion of restorations, each patient was re-examined at 6-month intervals. Radiographic crestal bone level changes were calculated, as well as soft tissue parameters including pocket probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and gingival index. Examination results were recorded from 18 months to 42 months. Implant survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between implant survival and recorded variables were estimated using Cox proportional regression analysis.

Results

The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated a cumulative survival rate of 97.6%. Three implants in three patients failed to osseointegrate at stage 2 surgery, and three implants in three patients were lost after loading. The mean marginal bone losses were 0.35 ± 0.14 mm, 0.47 ± 0.15 mm, and 0.58 ± 0.16 mm, as determined 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after prosthetic loading, respectively. Cox proportional regression analysis revealed that the variables such as age, sex, type of the restoration, and implant region had no significant influence on implant failure (P > 0.05). Coefficients of correlation between implant survival and crestal bone loss, pocket probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, and gingival index were found to be nonsignificant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Survival and radiographic and clinical assessments of implants after 2 years of function demonstrated promising results for an IDcam dental implant system.