A Possible Relationship between Peri-Implantitis, Titanium Hypersensitivity, and External Tooth Resorption: Metal-Free Alternative to Titanium Implants

Clinical retrospective analysis of peri-implant oral malignancies

PURPOSE

Complications of implant prostheses have direct correlation with the increased use of implants for dental rehabilitation. In this study, we present cases of peri-implant oral malignancies (PIOM) around dental implants and a retrospective analysis of patients treated for PIOM.

METHODS

The retrospective analysis was performed with patients treated for PIOM at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the Seoul National University Dental Hospital between 2006 and 2014. The patient records were thoroughly screened for previous medical issues, human papilloma virus infections, and other clinical data with a focus on relevant information such as localization, time from implant insertion to the development of the carcinoma, implant type and prosthetic rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were diagnosed with PIOM. The male-to-female ratio was 1.625. The mean age of the patients was 60.42 ± 9.35 years old. Three patients reported ongoing alcohol/tobacco consumption. Five patients had a history of previous oral cancer surgery or exhibited mucosal lesions. The time from implant placement until carcinoma diagnosis was 49.13 ± 33.63 months on average. Most PIOM patients (95.2%) were diagnosed with SCC. All patients had previously been treated for peri-implantitis. In 85.7% of the patients, prostheses were observed on the opposing teeth where PIOM occurred.

CONCLUSION

Based on the review of these cases, it can be deduced that there is a possibility that implant treatment and galvanic currents between prosthesis may constitute an irritant and/or inflammatory cofactor which contributes to the formation and/or development of malignant tumors. Patients at potential risk may benefit from individualized recall intervals and careful evaluations.

Silica coated high performance oxide ceramics promote greater ossification than titanium implants: an in vivo study

BACKGROUND

This in vitro study investigated the osseointegration and implant integration of high performance oxide ceramics (HPOC) compared to titanium implants in rabbits.

METHODS

Histomorphometry was conducted around the distal, proximal, medial, and lateral aspects of the HPOC to quantify the amount of mature and immature ossification within the bone interface. Histomorphometry was conducted by a trained musculoskeletal pathologist. The region of interest (ROI) represented the percentage of surrounding area of the implant. The percentage of ROI covered by osteoid implant contact (OIC) and mature bone implant contact (BIC) were assessed. The surrounding presence of bone resorption, necrosis, and/or inflammation were quantitatively investigated.

RESULTS

All 34 rabbits survived the 6- and 12-week experimental period. All HPOC implants remained in situ. The mean weight difference from baseline was + 647.7 mg (P < 0.0001). The overall OIC of the ceramic group was greater at 6 weeks compared to the titanium implants (P = 0.003). The other endpoints of interest were similar between the two implants at all follow-up points. No difference was found in BIC at 6- and 12-weeks follow-up. No bone necrosis, resorption, or inflammation were observed.

CONCLUSION

HPOC implants demonstrated a greater osteoid implant contact at 6 weeks compared to the titanium implants, with no difference found at 12 weeks. The percentage of bone implant contact of HPOC implants was similar to that promoted by titanium implants.

Titanium Allergy Caused by Dental Implants: A Systematic Literature Review and Case Report

(1) Background: Hypersensitivity reactions to metals may arise in predisposed patients chronically exposed to metallic materials, including dental implants made of titanium alloys. The purpose of this article was to systematically review titanium allergy manifestations in patients treated with dental implants and report a clinical case; (2) Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed for articles published in the English language until July 2021. The following eligibility criteria were adopted: (1) Population: individuals undergoing titanium and/or titanium alloy implant-supported rehabilitations; (2) Exposure: peri-implant soft tissue reactions attributable to implant insertion; (3) Outcome: evidence of titanium allergy, diagnostic methods, and forms of resolution; (3) Results: The included studies, in summary, presented evidence that titanium should not be considered an inert material, being able to trigger allergic reactions, and may be responsible for implant failure. A 55-year-old male patient received 3 implants in the posterior region of the left mandible and presented an epulis-like lesion developed from the peri-implant mucosa. The immunohistochemical analysis of the biopsy specimen confirmed the initial diagnosis of allergic reaction to titanium; (4) Conclusions: Although the evidence is weak, and titanium allergy has a low incidence, hypersensitivity reactions should not be underestimated. A rapid and conclusive diagnosis is mandatory to prevent further complications.