Analysis of Prosthetic Factors Affecting Peri-Implant Health: An in vivo Retrospective Study

Comparative Analysis of Osteoblastic Responses to Titanium and Alumina-Toughened Zirconia Implants: An In Vitro Study

INTRODUCTION

Osteoblastic responses play a crucial role in the success of oral implants. Enhanced proliferation of osteoblast cells is associated with reduced cell mortality and an increase in bone regeneration. This study aims to evaluate the osteoblastic responses following oral implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Osteoblast stem cells were harvested and subsequently cultivated using cell culture techniques. The osteoblastic phenotype of the extracted cells was confirmed by examining the extracellular matrix. Cell morphogenesis on functionalized biomaterial surfaces was assessed through indirect immunofluorescence staining. The cellular response was investigated in the presence of two types of implant materials: titanium (Ti) and alumina-toughened zirconia (ATZ). Cell viability and apoptosis were quantitatively assessed using MTT assays and flow cytometry, respectively.

RESULTS

The survival of osteoblastic lineage cells was moderately reduced post-implantation. Viability in the Ti implant group remained at approximately 86%, while in the ATZ group, it was observed at 75%, which is considered acceptable. Moreover, there was a significant disparity in cell survival between the two implant groups (p < 0.05). Analysis of apoptosis levels at various concentrations revealed that the rate of apoptosis was 3.6% in the control group and 18.5% in the ATZ group, indicating that apoptosis or programmed cell death in the ATZ-treated group had increased nearly four-fold (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study indicate a reduction in osteoblastic cell line survival following implant treatment, with titanium implants exhibiting superior performance in terms of cell survival. However, it was also noted that the incidence of apoptosis in osteoblast cells was significantly higher in the presence of zirconium-based implants.

Influence of crestal and sub-crestal implant position on development of peri-implant diseases: a 5-year retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of crestal and subcrestal implant position on development of peri-implant diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses were allocated in two groups: with the shoulder (i) placed in sub-crestal level and (ii) placed at bone level. For each patient, the following clinical variables were assessed: FMPS, FMBS, PlI, BOP, and PD. After prothesis delivery, an intraoral radiograph was obtained; this exam was performed also at 5 years of observation period.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found in terms of FMPS and FMBS at baseline and after 5 years follow-up (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference was assessed between PD of control group and test group (P = 0.042). Patient-based analysis showed a 25.6% of peri-implant mucositis and 32.6% of peri-implantitis for implants placed with the shoulder in crestal position, while for implants inserted in sub-crestal position the percentage of peri-implant-mucositis and peri-implantitis were 19%; no statistically significant difference was found between groups after 5 years (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of the present study, the clinical and radiographic outcomes showed that the percentage of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was not statistically significant for both groups after 5 years follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The outcomes of present study clinically demonstrated that a deep position of implant shoulder did not provide any benefits. On the contrary, it may be considered a possible risk indicator for implant diseases.

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Implant Crown Materials on Implant Components and Bone Stress Distribution: A 3D Finite Element Analysis

Background

Choosing implant crown materials for restoration remains challenging in clinical practice. This study assesses the impact of all-ceramic restoration instead of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restoration on the stress distribution within implant components and the surrounding bone.

Methods

Four 3D models of a mandibular second premolar were meticulously prepared. The study groups comprised zirconia, lithium disilicate, and zirconia lithium silicate monolithic ceramic crowns cemented onto a zirconia hybrid abutment. A PFM crown cemented onto a cementable abutment was chosen as the control group. A total vertical load of 583 N was applied to the occlusal contact areas. Stress distribution within the crown and implant components was analyzed using von Mises stress analysis. Principal stress analyses were employed to assess stress distribution in the peripheral bone.

Results

The PFM model exhibited the highest von Mises stress values for both the implant (428.7 MPa) and crown (79.7 MPa) compared to the other models. The all-ceramic models displayed the highest maximum von Mises stress within the abutment, approximately 335 MPa, compared to the PFM model. von Mises stresses of the abutment and implant in the all-ceramic models were 69% higher and 20% lower, respectively, than those in the PFM model. Screw stresses were relatively consistent across all groups. Principal stresses in spongy bone and minimum principal stress in cortical bone were consistent across all models.

Conclusions

All-ceramic restoration with a hybrid abutment, as opposed to traditional PFM restoration with a cementable abutment, does not adversely affect the implant and abutment screw and reduces crown stresses. Stresses within hybrid abutments were notably higher than those within cementable abutments. Spongy bone stresses remained unaffected by the type of crown or abutment.

Prosthetic Design Factors Influencing Peri-Implant Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Peri-implant disease, encompassing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, presents a growing challenge in implant dentistry. This comprehensive review explores the intricate interplay between prosthetic design factors and the development of peri-implant disease. By analyzing the impact of prosthetic components on microbial colonization, mechanical stress, and soft tissue health, the review highlights their crucial role in disease prevention and management. Additionally, it emphasizes the significance of maintenance protocols, prosthetic adjustments, and patient education in ensuring favorable long-term outcomes. The review underscores the potential for future advancements in prosthetic design, including innovative materials and digital technologies, and stresses the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in optimizing patient care. Overall, the review underscores the critical role of prosthetic design in addressing the complexities of peri-implant disease, offering insights for clinicians and researchers to enhance the success and longevity of implant-supported restorations.

Prevalence of bone loss surrounding dental implants as detected in cone beam computed tomography: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of crestal, and apical bone loss (CBL & ABL) associated with dental implants in CBCT scans. The second objective was to assess the radiographic stage of implant disease and the visible predisposing factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CBCT scans that were taken from January 2015 to January 2022 in King Saud Medical City were screened to examine the marginal and periapical condition of dental implants. Information related to demographic variables, stage of bone loss, and radiographically evident predisposing factors were collected. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 772 implant scans were analyzed. The prevalence of crestal bone loss and apical bone loss around the implants were 6.9% and 0.4% respectively. The amount of bone loss was moderate in 52.8% of cases of CBL and 100% mild in cases of ABL. The risk factors for CBL were patient age (p < 0.001), implant location (p < 0.001), bone loss in proximal teeth (p < 0.001), and adjacent edentulous sites (p < 0.001). The risk factors for ABL were adjacent periapical infection (p < 0.001) and endodontic therapy (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of CBL and ABL was low. The CBCT can be used as a diagnostic tool for studying the prevalence of bone loss associated with peri-implant disease and relevant risk factors. The implantation of CBCT to evaluate the success and the prognosis of dental implants or the treatment of peri-implant diseases can be further considered in future research.

Suggested mesiodistal distance for multiple implant placement based on the natural tooth crown dimension with digital design

PURPOSE

The purpose of this investigation was to identify a mesiodistal algorithm for multiple posterior implant placement based upon an ideal prosthetically restoration design.

METHODS

One hundred one cases of posterior free-end edentulous arches were selected for digital crown designs and measurements. Cone bean computed tomogram and digital fabricated crown were applied. DICOM files were exported to a viewer software (BlueSkyPlan4) to generate digital crown and measurement. The mesiodistal space between roots of adjacent teeth and center of the potential implant horizontally, from both cross-section and coronal plane were measured. Comparisons were performed using t-tests.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the distances of the maxillary and mandibular posterior implants to adjacent natural teeth (p > 0.05). For interdental/implant distances, premolars are around 4.2 mm and molars are 5.4 mm, correspondently. The second premolar interimplant distance is around 7-7.4 mm. The distance of interimplant of the first molar is about 8-8.5 mm. For the maxillary second molar, the interimplant distance is 9.26 ± 0.29 mm and the mandibular second molar interimplant distance is 9.58 ± 0.19 mm, which is significantly different. No difference was found between the two different measurement methods.

CONCLUSION

A mesiodistal algorithm of 4-4.6 (implant to adjacent canine tooth), 7-7.4, 8-8.5, and 9-9.5 mm was recommended for interimplant/tooth distance from first premolar to second molar when placing implants with or without case-specific prosthetic planning prior to surgery.