New-design dental implants: a 1-year prospective clinical study of 344 consecutively placed implants comparing immediate loading versus delayed loading and flapless versus full-thickness flap

Survival of dental implants placed in a postgraduate educational setting: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Dental implant treatment can still fail due to various factors. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the influence of operator experience in a postgraduate educational setting, as well as patient, implant, and surgical risk factors on the incidence of the dental implant failure.

METHODS

The dental records of 1049 implants with a mean follow-up of 794.70 days were analysed. Variables included operator experience (year of specialty study) and clinic-pathological patients' related variables. Clinic-pathological associations were explored and a Cox regression model accounted for implant survival factors.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis revealed that a history of periodontitis and smoking were the only factors with independent prognostic value, with hazard ratios of 2.0 (95 % CI: 1.0-4.0, p = 0.048) and 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.0-3.6, p = 0.039) respectively. Conversely, despite implant treatment delivered by early career students had a higher failure rate (5.6 %) compared to advanced career students (3.7 %), this difference was statistically significant only in the univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Periodontitis and smoking are independent prognostic variables, with career level potentially biasing complex case allocation to advanced students. Targeted educational interventions, including virtual reality and artificial intelligence, should be emphasized in student training. University-based implant trials must consider operator career stage.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The study underscores the importance of operator experience in dental implant success. It highlights that while clinical experience influences outcomes, factors like a history of periodontitis and smoking are independent predictors of implant failure. These findings emphasize the need for targeted educational interventions to improve clinical training and patient outcomes.

Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane to identify publications reporting on the outcomes of Type 1A for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. The success and survival rates of the included articles were reported, which were further categorized according to the clinical criteria reported in Type 1A. Mean survival rates were univariately compared between risk groups and additionally between studies published before and since 2012 using bias-corrected and study size-weighed bootstrap tests. A study time-correcting meta-analysis was then performed to obtain an overall effect for the study pool.

RESULTS

A total of 3118 publications were identified in the search, with a total of 68 articles included. A mean number of implants per study were 37.2 and mean follow-up was 2.8 years. All the included studies utilizing Type 1A report highly selective inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate risk group comparison determined that studies before 2012 report a significantly lower mean survival rate (difference of -1.9 percentage points [PP], 95% CI: [-0.3, -4.0], p = .02), facial gap dimension had an impact on survival rates (+3.1 PP [0.2, 5.3] for width >2 mm, p = .04), as well as presence of endodontic infection (+2.6 PP [0.9, 5.1], p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Type 1A has a high survival rate in studies reporting strict patient and site selection criteria. Further research is required to assess esthetic and functional success with Type 1A treatments.

Dental Implants Inserted in Fresh Extraction Sockets versus Healed Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present review aimed to evaluate the difference of dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) between implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets or healed sites. Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus manual search of journals, including studies randomized or not. Meta-analyses were performed besides meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. The review included 163 publications. Altogether, there were 17,278 and 38,738 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites, respectively. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that implants in sockets had a higher failure risk in comparison to healed sites: OR 1.349, all studies included; OR 2.070, only prospective non-RCTs; OR 2.487, only RCTs (all p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 1.616, p = 0.029), but not in the mandible (OR 2.192, p = 0.075). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was -0.053 mm (p = 0.089). There was an estimated decrease of 0.003 in OR (p = 0.284) and an increase of 0.006 mm (p = 0.036) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up. In conclusion, implants placed in fresh extraction sockets present higher risk of failure than implants placed in healed sites.

Comparative evaluation of crestal bone level by flapless and flap techniques for implant placement: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

:To compare the crestal bone level of flapless technique of dental implant placement with the flap technique.

Setting and Design

This Systematic review and Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and registered with PROSPERO.

Materials and Methods

Electronic search of Medline and Google scholar databases for articles from 2010 till March 2020 was performed. Studies comparing the crestal bone level with both the techniques were included. After the collection of data, the risk of bias was assessed for each study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Meta-analysis was executed using RevMan 5 software version 5.3.

Results

23 studies were included. Statistically significant difference in crestal bone level was found between flapless and flap surgery with mean difference of -0.14 (flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; P = 0.01FNx01). The difference in crestal bone level between the 2 groups was not statistically significant with a mean difference of -0.05(Guided flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.00; P=0.06). Meta-analysis of the freehand flapless surgery with flap surgery generated a mean difference of -0.20 which was found to be statistically significant (Freehand flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.03; P=0.02FNx01).

Conclusions

Flapless placement of implant can positively influence crestal bone loss in comparison with conventional flap technique.

In vivo Comparison of Crestal Bone Heights Following Implant Placement with "Flapless" and "Flap" Techniques in the Sites of Early Loaded Implants

Purpose:

The purpose was to evaluate the difference in crestal bone loss (CBL) around implants with flap and flapless methods followed by early loading.

Materials and Methods:

Twenty implants were placed in twenty patients – ten using flap and ten using flapless techniques. The difference in CBL was measured on standardized digital periapical radiograph taken at 0 week, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months.

Results:

The present study showed the mean CBL on proximal surfaces when evaluated at intervals of 0 week, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months for flapless method was significantly lower than with flap method the values of which were +0.07 mm against +0.26 mm on mesial side and +0.15 mm against +0.33 mm on distal side at 6 months.

Conclusion:

The flapless approach is a predictable procedure when patient selection and surgical technique are appropriate, and results in lesser CBL.

Comparison between flapless and open-flap implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P=0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P=0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P=0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.

A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes on Patients Rehabilitated with Complete-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses According to the Time of Loading

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review on studies assessing clinical outcomes in patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data obtained from patient and clinical outcomes, as implant failure, success rate, survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss, were included on this review. The search was performed on databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled studies, and an adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for observational studies. All data were tabulated according to the time of loading: (1) immediate restoration/loading, (2) early loading, and (3) conventional loading.

RESULTS

From a total of 4027 studies identified through the three databases, six of them were randomized controlled trials, five of them were prospective observational studies, and another five were retrospective observational studies. In total, 5954 implants, 1294 patients and 1305 full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were included in this review. There was a wide heterogeneity among clinical studies regarding the study design and treatment procedures. Thus, pooled estimates were not performed in order to avoid potential biases. The methodological assessment by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale showed a moderate quality of observational studies. Regarding the RCTs studies, all of them presented at least one element of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence of high survival-success implant rate (95-100%) for either loading protocols (immediate restoration/loading, early loading, and conventional loading). However, careful attention must be taken by clinician when interpreting the results reported in clinical studies. Future studies should be performed using standardized methodology in order to determine the true predictability regarding immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols.

Augmentation versus No Augmentation for Immediate Postextraction Implants

Purpose

To assess the effects of augmentation versus no augmentation in patients restored with immediate postextraction single-tooth implants on implant failure and patient satisfaction.

Materials and methods

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (22 March 2017). Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals.

Results

We included six studies (287 participants). Two trials compared no augmentation versus bone graft augmentation and reported no implant failures in both groups after a follow-up period of 6 months (20 implants) and 1 year (34 implants). One trial compared bone graft augmentation versus membrane augmentation and reported no difference in implant failure between both groups after 6 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.31) or 1 year of follow-up (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.86), and no implants were lost after 3 years. Three trials compared membrane augmentation versus combined bone graft and membrane augmentation, and there was no difference between the groups after six months of follow-up in implant failure (RR 5.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 41.93) or after 1 year (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.02 to 9.05). There was insufficient evidence regarding patient satisfaction in all the included trials.

Conclusions

In patients restored with immediate postextraction single-tooth implants, there is insufficient evidence to recommend simultaneous augmentation or a certain augmentation protocol to enhance implant survival and patient satisfaction. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017054439).

Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants.

RESULTS

The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.

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.

Immediately loaded non-submerged versus delayed loaded submerged dental implants: a meta-analysis

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rate, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated with immediately loaded non-submerged dental implants or delayed loaded submerged implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. The search strategy resulted in 28 publications. The inverse variance method was used for a random- or fixed-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity. The estimates of an intervention were expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in millimetres. Twenty-three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, one at moderate risk of bias, and four studies were considered at low risk of bias. The difference between procedures (submerged vs. non-submerged implants) significantly affected the implant failure rate (P = 0.02), with a RR of 1.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.83). There was no apparent significant effect of non-submerged dental implants on the occurrence of postoperative infection (P = 0.29; RR 2.13, CI 0.52-8.65) or on marginal bone loss (P = 0.77; MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.17).

Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss for the insertion of dental implants in fresh extraction sockets compared to the insertion in healed sites, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.

DATA

Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, resh extraction socket, immediate placement, immediate insertion, immediate implant.

SOURCES

An electronic search was undertaken in July/2014, in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The search strategy resulted in 73 publications, with 8,241 implants inserted in sockets (330 failures, 4.00%), and 19,410 in healed sites (599 failures, 3.09%). It is suggested that the insertion of implants in fresh extraction sockets affects the failure rates (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.95, P<0.0001). The difference was not statistically significant when studies evaluating implants inserted in maxillae or in mandibles were pooled, or when the studies using implants to rehabilitate patients with full-arch prostheses were pooled; however, it was significant for the studies that rehabilitated patients with implant-supported single crowns and for the controlled studies. There was no apparent significant effect on the occurrence of postoperative infection or on the magnitude of marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential for biases and to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, most of them not randomized.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The question whether immediate implants are more at risk for failure than implants placed in mature bone has received increasing attention in the last years. As the philosophies of treatment alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment.

Flapless versus conventional flapped dental implant surgery: a meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated by dental implants being inserted by a flapless surgical procedure versus the open flap technique, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. The search strategy resulted in 23 publications. The I2 statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used for random-effects model or fixed-effects model, when indicated. The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in millimeters. Sixteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, whereas two studies were considered of moderate risk of bias, and five studies of low risk of bias. The funnel plots indicated absence of publication bias for the three outcomes analyzed. The test for overall effect showed that the difference between the procedures (flapless vs. open flap surgery) significantly affect the implant failure rates (P = 0.03), with a RR of 1.75 (95% CI 1.07-2.86). However, a sensitivity analysis revealed differences when studies of high and low risk of bias were pooled separately. Thus, the results must be interpreted carefully. No apparent significant effects of flapless technique on the occurrence of postoperative infection (P = 0.96; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.23-4.03) or on the marginal bone loss (P = 0.16; MD -0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.16-0.03) were observed.