Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review

Outcomes of implants placed in sites of previously failed implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The survival rate of implants placed at sites of previous failures including the best treatment strategies remain unclear. This systematic review was performed to assess implant survival and peri-implant health for such cases, including subgroup analyses of immediate versus delayed implant placement and augmentation. Four electronic databases were searched. Meta-analyses including subgroup analyses were performed (PROSPERO CRD42024548610). Out of 1798 records identified, 24 studies were included. The 1-year implant survival rate after replacement was 96.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.8-99.3%), with no significant difference between immediate and delayed placement (P = 0.31) or immediate and delayed augmentation (P = 0.85). Immediate augmentation showed higher overall implant survival (97.6%, 95% CI 93.4-99.9%) compared to delayed augmentation (91.7%, 95% CI 83.4-97.5%), although not statistically significant (P = 0.26). Peri-implant health outcomes, including marginal bone loss, were similar across subgroups. Second implant replacements had lower survival rates than first replacements. Replacement of the failed implant is an appealing treatment option for failed implants, although the implant survival is lower compared to initially placed implants. Immediate implant placement can be done if sufficient bone is present. If insufficient bone remains after removal, immediate augmentation followed by delayed implant placement is recommended.

Hydroxyapatite nano-pillars on TI-6Al-4V: Enhancements in cell spreading and proliferation during cell/surface integration

Despite the attractive combinations of cell/surface interactions, biocompatibility, and good mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V, there is still a need to enhance the early stages of cell/surface integration that are associated with the implantation of biomedical devices into the human body. This paper presents a novel, easy and reproducible method of nanoscale and nanostructured hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings on Ti-6Al-4V. The resulting nanoscale coatings/nanostructures are characterized using a combination of Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy equipped with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. The nanostructured/nanoscale coatings are shown to enhance the early stages of cell spreading and integration of bone cells (hFOB cells) on Ti-6Al-4V surfaces. The improvements include the acceleration of extra-cellular matrix, cell spreading and proliferation by nanoscale HA structures on the coated surfaces. The implications of the results are discussed for the development of HA nanostructures for the improved osseointegration of Ti-6Al-4V in orthopedic and dental applications.

Influence of Topography and Composition of Commercial Titanium Dental Implants on Cell Adhesion of Human Gingiva-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: An In Vitro Study

The topography and composition of dental implant surfaces directly impact mesenchymal cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, crucial aspects of achieving osseointegration. However, cell adhesion to biomaterials is considered a key step that drives cell proliferation and differentiation. The aim of this study was to characterize characterize the topography and composition of commercial titanium dental implants manufactured with different surface treatments (two sandblasted/acid-etched (SLA) (INNO Implants, Busan, Republic of Korea; BioHorizonsTM, Oceanside, CA, USA) and two calcium phosphate (CaP) treated (Biounite®, Berazategui, Argentina; Zimmer Biomet, Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA)) and to investigate their influence on the process of cell adhesion in vitro. A smooth surface implant (Zimmer Biomet, Inc.) was used as a control. For that, high-resolution methodologies such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray dispersive spectroscopy (EDX), laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM) were employed. Protein adsorption and retromolar gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs) adhesion to the implant surfaces were evaluated after 48 h. The adherent cells were examined by SEM and LSCM for morphologic and quantitative analyses. ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = 0.05) were employed to determine statistical significance. SEM revealed that INNO, BioHorizonsTM, and Zimmer implants have an irregular surface, whereas Biounite® has a regular topography consisting of an ordered pattern. EDX confirmed a calcium and phosphate layer on the Biounite® and Zimmer surfaces, and AFM exhibited different roughness parameters. Protein adsorption and cell adhesion were detected on all the implant surfaces studied. However, the Biounite® implant with CaP and regular topography showed the highest protein adsorption capacity and density of adherent GMSCs. Although the Zimmer implant also had a CaP treatment, protein and cell adhesion levels were lower than those observed with Biounite®. Our findings indicated that the surface regularity of the implants is a more determinant factor in the cell adhesion process than the CaP treatment. A regular, nanostructured, hydrophilic, and moderately rough topography generates a higher protein adsorption capacity and thus promotes more efficient cell adhesion.

The effect of different abutment materials on peri-implant tissues-A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

In patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the surrounding peri-implant tissues after at least 1 year?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review included eligible randomized controlled trials identified through an electronic search (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) comparing alternative abutment materials versus titanium (alloy) abutments with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and including at least 10 patients/group. Primary outcomes were peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) and probing depth (PD), these were evaluated based on meta-analyses. Abutment survival, biological and technical complications and aesthetic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB2-tool. This review is registered in PROSPERO with the number (CRD42022376487).

RESULTS

From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 12 articles could be included. Concerning the primary outcomes (MBL and PD), no differences could be seen between titanium abutment and zirconia or alumina abutments, not after 1 year (MBL: zirconia: MD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.16, alumina: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.17) (PD: zirconia: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.30, alumina: MD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.38), nor after 5 years. Additionally, no differences were found concerning the biological complications and aesthetic outcomes. The most important technical finding was abutment fracture in the ceramic group and chipping of the veneering material.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologically, titanium and zirconia abutments seem to function equally up to 5 years after placement.

Do zirconia dental implants present better clinical results than titanium dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if the zirconia implants present better clinical results when compared to titanium implants.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in 5 databases including, until March 2022, by 2 independent reviewers, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in the study and according whit this question: Do zirconia dental implants present better clinical results than titanium dental implants?

RESULTS

3235 studies were initially found in the researched databases. 03 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 71 patients with 192 implants (87 titanium and 105 zirconia) were evaluated, showing an effectiveness of 87,4% and 78,1% respectively and there was no statistically significant difference in terms of survival rate in the meta-analysis (P = 0.70; I² = 0%). Still in the meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between titanium and zirconia implants in relation to the pink esthetich score or bleeding on probing, however, a favorable difference was observed for titanium in relation to marginal bone loss (P = 0.001; I² = 0%). None of the studies evaluated had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Oral rehabilitation with zirconia implants showed no advantages over titanium in this systematic review. However, the small number of studies included and the uncertain risk of bias may raise doubts in this interpretation and the results should be analyzed with caution. New studies with greater methodological rigor, follow-up time and number of interventions should be performed in order to safely determine the indication for the use of zirconia implants.

Nanotopographical cues for regulation of macrophages and osteoclasts: emerging opportunities for osseointegration

Nanotopographical cues of bone implant surface has direct influences on various cell types during the establishment of osseointegration, a prerequisite of implant bear-loading. Given the important roles of monocyte/macrophage lineage cells in bone regeneration and remodeling, the regulation of nanotopographies on macrophages and osteoclasts has arisen considerable attentions recently. However, compared to osteoblastic cells, how nanotopographies regulate macrophages and osteoclasts has not been properly summarized. In this review, the roles and interactions of macrophages, osteoclasts and osteoblasts at different stages of bone healing is firstly presented. Then, the diversity and preparation methods of nanotopographies are summarized. Special attentions are paid to the regulation characterizations of nanotopographies on macrophages polarization and osteoclast differentiation, as well as the focal adhesion-cytoskeleton mediated mechanism. Finally, an outlook is indicated of coordinating nanotopographies, macrophages and osteoclasts to achieve better osseointegration. These comprehensive discussions may not only help to guide the optimization of bone implant surface nanostructures, but also provide an enlightenment to the osteoimmune response to external implant.

Finite Element Analysis of Zirconia Dental Implant

Titanium dental implants have had new competitors in recent years, such as fixtures made of zirconia, which promise better aesthetics. The purpose of this study is to evaluate their mechanical performance in silico (Finite Element Analysis). The investigation was performed on a single tooth Patent™ Dental Implant (Zircon Medical®, Altendorf, Switzerland) in two configurations: without offset (Test I) and with offset (Test II, 1.5 mm within the cortical bone). The Patent Implant system consists of two components: the implant with integrated abutment and the fibreglass post. The components of the dental implants were tested using a compression load of 400 N along the implant axis. The results showed that the chewing load generates stress distribution on the bone, therefore, the offset configuration should be avoided.

Recent Advancements in Materials and Coatings for Biomedical Implants

Metallic materials such as stainless steel (SS), titanium (Ti), magnesium (Mg) alloys, and cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloys are widely used as biomaterials for implant applications. Metallic implants sometimes fail in surgeries due to inadequate biocompatibility, faster degradation rate (Mg-based alloys), inflammatory response, infections, inertness (SS, Ti, and Co-Cr alloys), lower corrosion resistance, elastic modulus mismatch, excessive wear, and shielding stress. Therefore, to address this problem, it is necessary to develop a method to improve the biofunctionalization of metallic implant surfaces by changing the materials' surface and morphology without altering the mechanical properties of metallic implants. Among various methods, surface modification on metallic surfaces by applying coatings is an effective way to improve implant material performance. In this review, we discuss the recent developments in ceramics, polymers, and metallic materials used for implant applications. Their biocompatibility is also discussed. The recent trends in coatings for biomedical implants, applications, and their future directions were also discussed in detail.