Single-blind randomized clinical trial to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes after one year of immediate versus delayed implant placement supporting full-arch prostheses

Comparative Evaluation of Normal Saline Gel and Ozone Therapy on Soft and Hard Tissue Health in Dental Implant Surgery

AIMS

To comparatively evaluate the effect of normal saline gel and ozonated saline-ozonated gel (ozone therapy) on pain, inflammation, soft tissue, and crestal bone loss in dental implant surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Forty adult patients scheduled to undergo implant were randomized into two groups: Twenty patients (n = 20) received ozone therapy and controls (n = 20) received normal saline and gel during implant placement. Inflammation and pain were noted at days 1 and 7 and 3 month intervals by estimating C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and assessing visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. At 3 months, soft tissue outcomes were noted in terms of plaque index, gingival index, and pocket depth, while crestal bone loss was noted via a radiograph.

RESULTS

Mean CRP levels were significantly higher in the control group as compared to that in the case group on day 1 and day 7 follow-ups (P < 0.05). Mean VAS scores for pain were also lower in the case group as compared to the control group at all follow-ups, but the difference was significant statistically only at day 1 (P = 0.061). The plaque index was significantly lower in the case group as compared to the control group (P = 0.011) at final follow-up. No significant difference between two groups was observed for crestal bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Ozone therapy during implant placement was effective in reduction of pain, systemic inflammation, and plaque deposition in dental implant patients.

Vertical ridge augmentation with Ti-reinforced dense polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membranes or Ti-meshes and collagen membranes: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to evaluate hard and soft tissue parameters around implants placed in augmented posterior mandible, comparing Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membranes with Ti-meshes covered with collagen membranes, after 3 years of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty eligible patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membrane) or group B (mesh covered with collagen membrane) for vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) and simultaneous implants. Implants were evaluated using specific peri-implant parameters for bone and soft tissues: probing pocket depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BoP), modified gingival index (mGI), thickness of keratinized tissue (tKT), width of keratinized tissue (wKT), fornix depth (FD), peri-implant bone level (PBL), interproximal bone peaks (IBP), marginal bone loss (MBL), interproximal bone loss (IBL).

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients with 79 implants were evaluated after 3 years of follow-up. The mean value of MBL was 0.70 mm (group A = 0.73 mm; group B = 0.71 mm), while mean IBL was 0.54 mm (group A = 0.64 mm; group B = 0.40 mm). The treatment with meshes resulted not inferior to PTFE and their clinical results appeared similar. A strong correlation between PBL and IBP was confirmed. Both study groups showed an increase of tKT and wKT values.

CONCLUSION

In the posterior mandible, VRA using both techniques provides stable PBLs up to 3 years. A correct soft tissue management and a strict professional oral hygiene protocol play a crucial role on peri-implant health over time.

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.

Radiographic and Esthetic Evaluation Following Immediate Implant Placement with or without Socket Shield and Delayed Implant Placement Following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Objective

The purpose of this study was assessment of the changes in soft and hard tissues in the esthetic zone of maxilla following immediate implant placement (IIP) with and without the socket shield technique (SST) and placement of implants 4 months following socket preservation (DIP) in terms of alterations in crestal bone thickness (CBT) and soft tissue changes evaluated by means of pink esthetic scores (PES) following placement of implants in the esthetic zone of maxilla.

Materials and Methods

In the maxillary esthetic region, 75 dental implants were placed totally, with 25 implants each in the SST, IIP, and DIP groups. All participants were subjected to undergo CBCT for assessing the variations in thickness of crestal aspect of facial/buccal/labial alveolar bone (CBT). PES and PROMS (patient-related outcome measures) were assessed using VAS for pain threshold and esthetic satisfaction following implant placement and after 6th post-operative month.

Results

The mean reduction in CBT showed a statistically significant difference between and within the groups, in comparison to IIP and DIP groups, which demonstrated an average reduction in CBT 0.4 ± 0.1 and 0.2 ± 0.1 at 6 months following implant placement, respectively. The SST group showed a significantly lesser reduction in CBT of 0.05 ± 0.02. However, the mean difference in PES within and among the groups showed no significant difference statistically at P < 0.05. On comparison of individual scores of PES between the groups, the results showed significant difference statistically at P < 0.001.

Conclusion

The SST group demonstrated minimal reduction in CBT and a superior PES at the end of 6 months compared with the IIP and DIP groups.

Variations in Soft and Hard Tissues following Immediate Implant Placement versus Delayed Implant Placement following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Introduction

Although retrospective analysis has shown immediate placement of implants (IIP) in the maxillary esthetic zone showing promising outcomes compared to delayed placement of implants following socket preservation (DIP), a direct comparison in a prospective, well-designed randomized fashion with adequate power analysis between the two implant placement protocols is still lacking. This study is aimed at radiographically evaluating the effect of IIP after extraction as compared to implant placed in preserved sockets 4 months following extraction (DIP) in terms of changes in buccal plate thickness(CBT) after 6 months of healing and evaluation of pink esthetic score (PES) for assessment of soft tissue changes and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) using visual analogue scale (VAS).

Materials and Methods

25 implants were placed immediately following extraction in the IIP group, and 25 implants were placed four months following socket preservation with demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) in the DIP group, control group, in the maxillary esthetic region. CBCT was taken preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively to assess the dimensional changes in the buccal bone plates(CBT). PES and PROMs for pain threshold and patient satisfaction using VAS were evaluated at the time of implant placement and 6 months postoperatively.

Results

Significant differences in mean reduction in buccal plate thickness (CBT) were found in the test group (IIP) 0.2 ± 0.02 compared to the control group (DIP) which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.4 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001) at the end of 6 months. Although there was no statistically significant difference in PES between the groups, there was a significant difference between the groups when individual values of PES were compared at p < 0.001.

Conclusion

The IIP group showed lesser reduction in CBT and a better PES which is an important clinical information which could be translated clinically in situations where implant placement is planned in the maxillary esthetic region. This trial is registered with CTRI/2019/06/019723.

Vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) with Ti-reinforced d-PTFE membranes or Ti meshes and collagen membranes: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate hard and soft tissues around implants placed in posterior mandible 1 year after vertical ridge augmentation (VRA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

40 patients with vertical defects were enrolled and treated according to the study protocol. Patients were randomly divided into two study groups: reinforced PTFE membranes (group A) and titanium meshes plus collagen membranes (group B). All patients received simultaneous implants which were evaluated after prosthetic restoration at baseline and after 1 year, using the following parameters: peri-implant bone levels (PBLs), interproximal bone peaks (IBPs), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (mPI), gingival index (mGI), keratinized tissue thickness/width (tKT and wKT), and fornix depth (FD). Statistical analysis was performed to investigate any statistically significant differences and/or correlations (p = .05).

RESULTS

30 patients were completely followed up according to the study protocol. After 1 year, implants showed a change in PBL from 0.12 to 0.76 mm, with marginal bone loss of 0.67 and 0.61 mm for group A and group B, respectively, without significant differences (p > .9337). The estimated difference between treatments for the change from baseline in PBL was -0.05 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.16). Statistical analysis revealed strong correlations between PBL and IBP (p < .0001). However, no significant differences were observed for PPD, mPI, mGI, tKT, wKT, and FD (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that GBR treatment with titanium meshes plus collagen membranes (Group B) compared to reinforced PTFE membranes does not appear to be inferior or superior in terms of PBL change. In both groups, hard and soft tissues were stable after 1 year of follow-up, with a peri-implant bone loss less than 1.0 mm in the first year (study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04332679).

Effect of Different Timings of Implant Insertion on the Bone Remodeling Volume around Patients' Maxillary Single Implants: A 2-3 Years Follow-Up

Background: To investigate the middle-term effect on bone remodeling of different timings for different implant placement (immediate versus delayed). Methods: Patients with an anterior maxillary failing tooth were treated by single-crown supported by dental implant. Subjects were retrospectively analyzed for 3 years and assigned to one of two predictor groups: nine immediate versus 10 delayed implant placement (1-2 months after tooth extraction). The crestal bone loss around dental implants was measured with the cone beam computerized tomography by fusing pre-operative and post-operative data. Results: The percentage of volume loss registered at 1-year follow-up (%ΔV) was of 7.5% for the immediate group, which was significantly lower (p-values ≤ 0.0002) than the loss of 24.2% for the delayed group. At 3 years, there was a significant difference (p-values = 0.0291) between the two groups, respectively, with a volume loss of 14.6% and 27.1%. When different times were compared, the percentage of the volume loss for the immediate group was different (p-value = 0.0366) between the first and third year (7.5% and 14.6%, respectively). For the delayed group, no significant difference was registered between the 1- and 3-year follow-up. Conclusions: The bone loss around dental implant-supported single-crown with different timing of insertion appeared higher for the delayed group than the immediate group.

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.

The impact of oral rehabilitation with implants in nutrition and quality of life: A questionnaire-based survey on self-perception

BACKGROUND

The association between tooth loss and masticatory problems may influence on food choices and consequently impact nutrition and quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate impact of oral rehabilitation with implants in nutrition and quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed. The Questionnaire for Healthy Habits (QHH) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) tools were used to assess nutrition and oral health status, respectively. Oral implants were placed and the adjacent the bone was radiographically assessed. The mean outcomes of the QHH between pre- and post-rehabilitation periods were assessed with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The OHIP-14 was assessed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The implant surfaces showed a significant bone loss after six and 24 months of rehabilitation (p<0.001). There was no significant change in the masticatory pattern of patients (p>0.05). Nevertheless, the patients perceived a significant reduction in discomfort (p<0.02) when eating, after 24 months of the rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm the hypothesis that oral rehabilitation with implants may not trigger direct improvement in nutrition. However, it plays an especial role improving quality of life. Key words:Dentistry, nutrition, oral implants, quality of life.

Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survival rate of the implants and the peri-implant tissue changes associated with implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets and those inserted in healed sockets. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42016043309. A systematic search was conducted by two reviewers independently in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using different search terms; articles published until November 2016 were searched for. The searches identified 30 eligible studies. A total of 3,049 implants were installed in a total of 1,435 patients with a mean age of 46.68 years and a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. The survival rate of delayed implants (98.38%) was significantly greater than immediate implants (95.21%) (p=.001). For the marginal bone loss (p=.32), implant stability quotients values (p=.44), and pocket probing depth (p=.94) there was no significant difference between the analysed groups. The immediate implants placed in fresh sockets should be performed with caution because of the significantly lower survival rates than delayed implants inserted in healed sockets.

Long-Term Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Follow-up of 205 Brånemark System Mk III TiUnite Implants Submitted to Either Immediate or Delayed Loading

BACKGROUND

Studies are needed to evaluate long-term performance of immediately loaded implants with moderately rough surface. This retrospective study evaluated long-term survival and periimplant soft and hard tissue conditions in patients treated with TiUnite implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one consecutive patients (mean age, 52.6 years) received 205 Brånemark System Mk III TiUnite implants (145 maxillary, 60 mandibular). The indication was single tooth (n = 7 implants), partial (n = 94), or full arches (n = 104). One hundred thirteen implants were immediately loaded. Cumulative survival rate (CSR) of implants was assessed. Long-term marginal bone remodeling, probing pocket depth (PPD), and periimplant mucosa conditions were assessed.

RESULTS

Follow-up averaged 8.8 years (range, 6.6-10.6 years). Eight implants in 5 patients failed. CSR was 96.1% (implant basis) and 87.8% (patient basis) up to 10 years. At the longest follow-up, bone loss averaged 0.43 ± 1.15 mm (n = 173), PPD averaged 3.64 ± 0.74 mm, and periimplant mucosa was healthy in 74.6% of cases. Furthermore, 50.3% and 35.5% of implants scored negative for plaque and bleeding, respectively. No significant difference in CSR and hard and soft tissue conditions was found in the long term between immediately and delayed loaded implants.

CONCLUSION

Implants with TiUnite surface demonstrated excellent long-term survival, marginal bone response, and soft tissue conditions, despite a nonoptimal level of oral hygiene.

Comparison of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Parameters and Crestal Bone Loss Around Immediately Loaded and Delayed Loaded Implants in Smokers and Non-Smokers: 5-Year Follow-Up Results

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare peri-implant soft tissue parameters (plaque index [PI], bleeding on probing [BOP], and probing depth [PD] ≥4 mm) and crestal bone loss (CBL) around immediately loaded (IL) and delayed loaded (DL) implants in smokers and non-smokers.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients with IL implants (16 smokers and 15 non-smokers) and 30 patients with DL implants (17 smokers and 13 non-smokers) were included. Personal data regarding age, sex, and duration and daily frequency of smoking were gathered using a questionnaire. Peri-implant PI, BOP, and PD ≥4 mm were recorded, and mesial and distal CBL was measured on standardized digital radiographs. Multiple group comparisons were performed using the Bonferroni post hoc test (P <0.05).

RESULTS

All implants replaced mandibular premolars or molars. Mean scores of PI (P <0.05) and PD ≥4 mm (P <0.05) were statistically significantly higher in smokers compared with non-smokers in patients with IL and DL dental implants. The mean score of BOP (P <0.05) was statistically significantly higher in non-smokers compared with smokers in both groups. CBL (P <0.05) was statistically significantly higher in smokers compared with non-smokers in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in PI, BOP, PD ≥4 mm, and total CBL among smokers with IL and DL implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco smoking enhances peri-implant soft tissue inflammation and CBL around IL and DL implants. Loading protocol did not show a significant effect on peri-implant hard and soft tissue status in healthy smokers and non-smokers.