Assessment of Various Risk Factors for Success of Delayed and Immediate Loaded Dental Implants: A Retrospective Analysis

Primary stability of implant placement and loading related to dental implant materials and designs: A literature review

A variety of implant placement and loading protocols are identified, ranging from immediate implant placement on the day of extraction to delayed placement for at least 6 months after complete healing. The method of assessment of implant placement and loading plays an important role in the implantation. The expected clinical outcomes depend largely on multiple factors, such as the macroscopic design of the implant, surgical technique, and the quality and quantity of local bone in contact with the implant, which would be described in detail. The purpose of this literature review was to explore the relationship between the factors influencing the implant placement stability and implant design. By understanding the original appearance of implant design and the stability requirements of implant placement, it is hoped that more research in the future can meet the needs of dentists and patients.

Retrospective assessment of dental implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between implants/teeth using cone-beam computed tomography

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of dental implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between the implant and the adjacent tooth or implant, and their association with anatomical location, implant dimension, thread exposure, and presence of graft, using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CBCT scans of patients with implants were retrospectively assessed regarding the presence of implant-related perforation of adjacent anatomical structures, and inadequate mesial and distal spacing between the implant and the adjacent tooth/implant (i.e., < 1 mm or < 3 mm, respectively). Implants were classified according to anatomical location, dimensions, thread exposure, and the presence of graft (i.e., bone graft or bone substitutes). Prevalence of perforations and inadequate spacing was compared among the different implant classifications (Chi-squared test). Significance level was set at 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 1109 implants were assessed, out of which 369 (33.3%) presented perforation of adjacent structures. Prevalence of perforations in the maxilla (43.5%) was higher than in the mandible (11.3%). Inadequate spacing was found in 18.2% of the mesial and distal measurements, which was more prevalent in the maxilla (p < 0.001). Implants perforating adjacent structures or placed with inadequate spacing presented higher prevalence of thread exposure (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the presence of perforations or inadequate spacing and presence of graft (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-related perforations of relevant anatomical structures and inadequate spacing between the implant and the adjacent tooth/implant are relatively prevalent and more common in the maxilla. Both are associated with threads exposure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Information on dental implant-related perforations and inadequate spacing can assist dental surgeons in pre-surgical planning.

Five-year outcome of a retrospective cohort study comparing smokers vs. nonsmokers with full-arch mandibular implant-supported rehabilitation using the All-on-4 concept

The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year outcome of full-arch mandibular fixed prosthetic rehabilitation using the All-on-4 concept in smoking and nonsmoking patients. This retrospective cohort study included 200 patients (n = 100 smokers, n = 100 nonsmokers), 119 women and 81 men, with an average age of 53.7 years, rehabilitated in immediate function with 800 implants. Implant cumulative survival rate estimation (Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test) and marginal bone resorption (MBR) at 5 years (Mann-Whitney test) were compared between both groups. Multivariable analysis was used to investigate potential risk indicators for MBR ≥ 2.8 mm at 5 years. Nine patients (4.5%) were lost to follow-up. Four patients lost eight implants, specifically one nonsmoking patient (n = 1 implant) and three smoking patients (n = 7 implants), resulting in a cumulative survival rate estimation of 99.0% and 96.9% for nonsmokers and smokers, respectively (P = 0.296). The average (standard deviation) MBR at 5 years was 1.68 mm (0.76 mm) and 1.98 mm (1.02 mm) for nonsmokers and smokers, respectively (P = 0.045). Smoking (odds ratio = 2.92) was the only risk indicator significantly associated with MBR ≥ 2.8 mm in multivariable analysis. Smoking should not be an absolute contraindication for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible through the All-on-4 concept; however, smoking habits were significantly associated with MBR ≥ 2.8 mm.

Influence of involuntary cigarette smoke inhalation on osseointegration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies

There are no studies that have systematically reviewed the influence of involuntary cigarette smoke inhalation (ICSI) on the stability of implants. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies that assessed the influence of involuntary cigarette smoke inhalation ICSI on osseointegration. Indexed databases (PubMed, Google-Scholar, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge) were searched till September 2017. Titles and abstracts of studies identified using the above-described protocol were independently screened by 2 authors. Full-texts of studies judged by title and abstract to be relevant were independently evaluated for the stated eligibility criteria. Nine studies were included. Six studies showed that ICSI compromised bone area contact around implants. In 4 studies, peri-implant bone mineral density was significantly higher in the control group than among subjects exposed to ICSI. For the effects of ICSI on the osseointegration of dental implants, significant differences could be observed for bone-to-implant contact for test subjects in cancellous (Z=-4.08, p<0.001) and cortical bone (Z=-4.31, p<0.001) respectively. ICSI may negatively influence osseointegration of dental implants. It is imperative to educate patients about the negative effects of passive smoking on dental and systemic health.

Immediate loading implants: review of the critical aspects

Purpose

Modern dentistry have witnessed, a rapid and continuing evolution. Concerning the implant-rehabilitation protocols, they have been redefined in order to satisfy patient's increasing expectations in terms of comfort, aesthetic and shorter treatment period. The purpose of this review is to explore the concept of implant immediate loading and the indications for clinical practice. All the critical aspects that could influence the outcomes of this treatment will also be considered.

Materials and methods

Three protocols for implant load timing have been classified: immediate loading implants (ILI); early loading implants (ELI); and conventional loading implants (CLI). Two subclassifications point out the different loading modality: 1) Occlusal loading or Non-Occlusal loading, 2) Direct loading or Progressive loading. Micromovements have been considered, since the start of implant dentistry, one of the main risk for the success of osseointegration. The determinant and most accessible parameter to assess the primary stability is the implant insertion torque value. To achieve the necessary torque value to perform immediate loading, it is therefore important to evaluate the bone density at the implant site. Computerized tomography (CT) has been regarded as the best radiographic method to evaluate the residual bone.

Results

The clinical success of this technique is highly dependent on many factors: patient selection, bone quality and quantity, implant number and design, implant primary stability, occlusal loading and clinician's surgical ability. Among these, implant primary stability is undoubtedly the most important.

Conclusion

Studies on ILI show that successful outcome can be expected, if the previous criteria are fulfilled. It seems that ILI demonstrate a greater risk for implant failure when compared to CLI, although the survival rates were high for both the procedures. The use of different surgical procedures, type of prostheses, loading times and have very different study designs. This lack of homogeneity limits the relevance of the conclusions that can be drawn.