The Effect of Dental Implant Collar Design on Crestal Bone Loss at 1 Year After Implant Placement

In Vitro Characterization of an Anodized Surface of a Dental Implant Collar and Dental Abutment on Peri-Implant Cellular Response

The purpose of this paper was to determine the effect of anodization on the in vitro proliferation and adhesion of immortalized human keratinocytes (HaCats) and mouse bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) in Titanium Grade 23 (Ti6Al4V ELI) discs and to describe the surface topography, roughness, and composition of dental implants (body and collar) and abutments submitted to an area-specific anodization process. HaCat cells and BM-MSCs were seeded onto discs with three different surface treatments: machined, area-specific anodization for abutments, and area-specific anodization for implant collars. Cell proliferation was assessed using a resazurin-based fluorescent dye on days 1, 3, and 7, while cell adhesion was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Surface topography, roughness, and composition were evaluated for six implant bodies with an anodized rough surface, six anodized implant smooth collars, and six anodized prosthetic abutments. Both HaCats and BM-MSCs showed increased viability over time (p < 0.001) with no statistically significant differences among the different surfaces (p = 0.447 HaCats and p = 0.631 BM-MSCs). SEM analysis revealed an enhanced presence and adhesion of HaCat cells on the anodized surface for the implant collars and an increased adhesion of BM-MSCs on both the anodized and machined surface abutments. The topography characteristics of the treated implants and abutments varied depending on the specific implant region. Chemical analysis confirmed the presence of oxygen, calcium, phosphorus, and sodium on the anodized surfaces. The area-specific anodization process can be utilized to create variable topography, increase the specific surface area, and introduce oxygen, calcium, phosphorus, and sodium to dental implants and abutments. While BM-MSCs and HaCat cells showed similar adhesion and proliferation on anodized and machined surfaces, a positive interaction between anodized Ti6Al4V ELI surfaces and these two cell lines present in the peri-implant mucosa was observed. Due to the limitations of the present study, further research is necessary to confirm these findings.

Impact of collar laser microtexturing on peri-implant health and disease: a retrospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with the same body design but different collar surface (laser-microtextured vs. not laser-microtextured) after functional loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-three patients (29 females, 14 males) with 139 implants (60 laser-microtextured and 79 without laser microtexturing) were included in this study. Patients were consecutively included, and the data were collected during their implant maintenance visit. Clinical and radiographic parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and marginal bone loss (MBL) were recorded. In addition, the implant success index (ISI) score was determined. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis rank test, or the Pearson χ² test, along with binary logistic regression (p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant).

RESULTS

The median post-loading follow-up was 24 months with 100% survival rate. There was no significant differences in terms of mean PD (3.01 mm vs. 2.63 mm), mean MBL (0.54 vs. 0.49 mm), BoP (56.7% vs. 53.2%), and ISI score between laser-microtextured collars and implants without laser microtexturing. Logistic regression revealed arch as a significant predictor of peri-implantitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with laser-microtextured and non-laser-microtextured collar designs. Clinical relevance Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and careful monitoring of implant placement protocols are needed for definite conclusions.

Can the Macrogeometry of Dental Implants Influence Guided Bone Regeneration in Buccal Bone Defects? Histomorphometric and Biomechanical Analysis in Beagle Dogs

The aim of this experimental animal study was to assess guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant stability (ISQ) around two dental implants with different macrogeometries. Forty eight dental implants were placed within six Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups (n = 24 per group): G1 group implants presented semi-conical macrogeometry, a low apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (whereby the cervical portion was bigger than the implant body). G2 group implants presented parallel walls macrogeometry, a strong apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (with the cervical portion parallel to the implant body). Buccal (mouth-related) defects of 2 mm (c2 condition) and 5 mm (c3 condition) were created. For the control condition with no defect (c1), implants were installed at crestal bone level. Eight implants in each group were installed under each condition. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately after implant placement, and on the day of sacrifice (3 months after the implant placement). Histological and histomorphometric procedures and analysis were performed to assess all samples, measuring crestal bone loss (CBL) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The data obtained were compared with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The ISQ results showed a similar evolution between the groups at the two evaluation times, although higher values were found in the G1 group under all conditions. Within the limitations of this animal study, it may be concluded that implant macrogeometry is an important factor influencing guided bone regeneration in buccal defects. Group G1 showed better buccal bone regeneration (CBL) and BIC % at 3 months follow up, also parallel collar design can stimulate bone regeneration more than divergent collar design implants. The apical portion of the implant, with a stronger self-tapping feature, may provide better initial stability, even in the presence of a bone defect in the buccal area.