Occlusal Schemes for Implant Restorations: Best Evidence Consensus Statement

The Effect of Prosthetic Factors on the Long-Term Survival of Dental Implants: A Narrative Review

The success of implants depends on the biological and mechanical factors of the implant, as well as on the chosen prosthesis, which has different characteristics that can affect the survival of the implant and its marginal bone levels. Therefore, when choosing the type of prosthesis, it is necessary to understand and consider each of these variables and tailor them to the relevant clinical situation. In this narrative review, we will assess the types of prostheses, their different characteristics, timing, and their impact on implant survival and marginal bone levels, as accepted in today's literature.

Immediate loading on two adjacent single dental implants with definitive nonsplinted restorations: A proof of concept in the posterior zone

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate clinical, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of two adjacent single posterior implants immediately loaded with definitive single crowns up to 1 year. Ten patients in need of two adjacent posterior single implants were included. All implants were placed applying a fully digital workflow. Definitive screw-retained single zirconia crowns were delivered within 72 h after implant placement. Clinical parameters, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes were assessed up to 1 year of follow-up.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Clinical outcomes remained stable, with no implant failures or technical and biological complications throughout the observation period. Patient satisfaction was very high at baseline (crown delivery) and remained consistently high at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Crown insertion 3 days after implant placement was rated as an easy procedure by clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Two adjacent single implants with immediate definitive restorations (<72 h) in the posterior region appear to be a viable and easy treatment option to shorten the overall treatment time and potentially enhancing patient satisfaction. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the advantages of this treatment protocol over a delayed loading approach.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In selected cases, immediate implant loading with definitive restorations in the posterior region appears a valuable and straightforward option to shorten the overall treatment time.

Immediate loading of definitive restorations in partially edentulous patients requiring an implant-supported prosthesis: A scoping review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Interest is growing in immediately loading definitive implant-supported prostheses. However, it appears that implant protocols are evolving faster than their scientific validation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the current trends, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of a specific clinical loading scenario (type A), where a single definitive implant-retained restoration is delivered within 3 days. The focus question was "In partially edentulous patients requiring an implant-retained prosthesis (population), is immediate loading with a definitive restoration (concept) a viable treatment option (context)?"

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in the PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two authors independently reviewed the studies, screened titles and abstracts, and performed full-text analysis. Cross-reference checks within the bibliography of included studies, relevant reviews, and guideline were conducted. Bibliometric information and study details were extracted.

RESULTS

The search identified 2568 titles after removing duplicates. Four studies involving 91 participant and 100 implant-retained restorations were included in this scoping review. The selected articles were a randomized controlled trial (RCT), a prospective clinical study, and the remaining 2 were case series. The follow-up periods investigated ranged from 6 to 26 months. All studies evaluated marginal bone loss as a primary outcome, and only 1 implant failure was reported. Patient-reported outcome measures were favorable, and no major biological or technical complications were reported in any study.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate loading with a definitive restoration within 3 days appears to be a suitable approach in specific clinical situations.

A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs).

METHODS

Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes.

RESULTS

16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.

Survival of root canal-treated teeth adjacent to an implant: A retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the survival of root canal treated (RCT) teeth adjacent to an implant compared with that of RCT teeth of the same patient non-adjacent to an implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCT tooth of each patient adjacent to an implant were included in the test group. The control group consisted of another RCT tooth of the same patient; the control RCT tooth was not adjacent to an implant and selected to be of the same type of the RCT tooth in the test group. 72 teeth of 36 patients with at least 4-year follow-up were included. In addition to survival, other clinical and demographic parameters investigated were age, sex, tooth type and position, presence of a crown, presence of retreatment, presence of a post-core, presence of adjacent edentulous area, presence of implant-supported fixed prosthetic restoration on the antagonist tooth and periapical health status. Pearson Chi-Square and Fisher Exact tests were used to compare the test and the control groups with categorical variables (α=0.05). Survival curves were obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Log-rank test was performed to compare the survival probabilities (α=0.05).

RESULTS

No significant difference in survival rates was observed between the test and the control groups (p = 0.72). Similarly, no significant relationship was found between the investigated clinical variables and the survival rates of RCT teeth (p>0.05). Survival times differed depending on the presence of an adjacent edentulous area (p<0.001) and the periapical health status (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

RCT teeth with unhealed periapical tissues had a shorter cumulative survival time. Similarly, those adjacent to an edentulous area had shorter cumulative and complication-free survival times.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first study to determine the survival outcome of a RCT tooth adjacent to an implant compared to a non-adjacent one in the same patient. Being adjacent to an implant did not have a detrimental effect on the survival time and rate of RCT teeth.

Occlusion as a predisposing factor for peri-implant disease: A review article

BACKGROUND

The restoration of dental implants presents a unique challenge due to the intrinsic biomechanical differences between osseointegrated implants and natural teeth, and their subsequent responses to occlusal loading. However, controversy exists regarding the role that occlusion plays in the physiology of the peri-implant complex.

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the scientific literature regarding occlusion as it relates to implant dentistry and peri-implant disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article presents a narrative review on occlusal loading and its potential effects on the peri-implant complex, as well as some generally accepted guidelines for occlusion in implant dentistry.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Although there is strong evidence linking occlusal factors to mechanical complications of dental implants, the same cannot be said regarding biological complications. There is no clear scientific evidence on the relationship between occlusal overload and peri-implant disease. However, occlusal overload may be an accelerating factor for peri-implant disease in the presence of inflammation. As the biomechanical properties of dental implants differ from that of the natural dentition, modifications to classic concepts of occlusion may be necessary when dental implants are involved. Thus, clinical recommendations are proposed which function to minimize unfavorable occlusal forces on implant restorations and reduce the associated biological and mechanical complications.

Radiographic density changes may be associated with overloading and implant loss on short implants: A 5-year analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyze changes in radiographic bone density around short implants with and without cantilevers at 5 years post-loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six patients with two adjacent posterior missing teeth participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. All patients were randomly allocated to receive either two short implants (6 mm) with single-unit restorations (group TWO) or one single short implant (6 mm) with a cantilever restoration (group ONE-C). Patients were followed up at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years. Radiographic analysis was performed, through an arbitrary gray scale value (GSV) of the peri-implant bone, assessing the changes in radiographic density between groups and between time points. Differences in GSV between groups and over time were calculated using a generalized estimating equation to allow for adjustments for the correlation within individuals and between time points.

RESULTS

At 5 years, 26 patients remained in the study (15 in group ONE-C; 11 in group TWO). Implant survival rates were 80.4% in group TWO and 84.2% in group ONE-C (p = 0.894). The radiographic analysis revealed that GSVs increased in both groups over time (p < 0.001). The overall radiographic density was higher in group ONE-C than in group TWO in the maxilla (p = 0.030). Conversely, in the mandible, these significant differences between the groups were not found (p > 0.05). Compared to the implants that survived, the implants that failed demonstrated a distinct radiographic density pattern (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present study, the radiographic bone density in the maxilla appears to increase distinctly around short implants when cantilevers are used. In contrast, the radiographic density in the mandible appears to be unaffected by the use of a cantilever, suggesting a lower threshold of adaptation to occlusal forces and thus a higher susceptibility to overload and implant loss at earlier time points.

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.

Maximal Bite Force Measured via Digital Bite Force Transducer in Subjects with or without Dental Implants—A Pilot Study

The aims of the current study were as following: (1) to evaluate the maximal bite forces in patients with dental implants versus patients without dental implants, as measured by a digital bite force transducer (GM10); (2) to evaluate the influences of sex, age, and sleep/awake bruxism on the maximal bite forces of the two groups. Forty patients recruited to the study were divided into two groups: test group (“implant”) if they had one or more posterior restored implants and control group (“no-implant”) without the presence of posterior dental implants. A digital bite fork (GM10) was used to measure the bite forces from three posterior occluding pairs in all participants. Differences in the mean values between the test and control groups and between different sexes were evaluated using one-way and two-way ANOVA tests. A cross-tabulation analysis was conducted to identify a trend line between the groups. There was no significant difference in the maximal bite force between the test and control groups (p = 0.422), but the cross-tabulation analysis revealed a clear trend of a stronger representation of the “no-implant” group at higher occlusal forces. A significant difference was detected between the maximal biting forces of male and female subjects (p = 0.030 in the implant group, p = 0.010 in the no-implant group), regardless of the experimental group. The presence of bruxism and clenching did not influence the bite force values (p = 0.953), and a significant difference was not found between the age groups (p = 0.393). Within the limitations of this study, it may be assumed that there was no significant difference between the maximal bite forces between patients with and without dental implants but that there was a trend line implicating a stronger representation of the “no-implant” group at higher forces. In addition, the results revealed a significant sex-related difference in the maximal occlusal force. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.