Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano, Andrea Blasi, Leopoldo Mauriello, Peter Windisch, Giovanni E Salvi, Anton Sculean, Luca Ramaglia
Objectives: To evaluate the effects of submarginal instrumentation (SI) with or without adjunctive delivery of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)/amino acids and cross-linked hyaluronic acid (xHyA) gel in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM).
Material and methods: Forty implants supporting single-unit crowns diagnosed with PM in 40 patients were randomly assigned to test (SI + NaOCl/amino acids and xHyA) or control group (SI alone). The primary outcome was mean BoP change. Full-Mouth Plaque Score (FMPS), Full-Mouth Bleeding Score (FMBS), modified plaque index (mPlI), and probing depth (PD) were assessed as secondary outcomes. Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Disease resolution was also recorded.
Results: Two patients were lost during follow-up while 38 patients completed the study without adverse effects. After 6 months, all clinical parameters improved statistically significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). The change in mean BoP at 1, 3, and 6 months was 72.2% ± 24.3%, 70.4% ± 24.3%, and 63.0% ± 24.6% for test group and 70.0% ± 19.9%, 66.7% ± 24.8%, and 56.7% ± 30.8% for control group. The mean BoP change in experimental procedure was statistically significant at all investigation time points (p < 0.05). Regarding disease resolution, implants with initial PD ≤ 4 mm did not show differences among groups (p > 0.05); conversely, an initial PD = 5 mm yielded a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Disease resolution correlation with test group was statistically significant with a 3.77 odds ratio.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, adjunctive delivery of NaOCl/amino acids and xHyA to SI yielded superior clinical outcomes compared with SI alone in the treatment of PM.
{"title":"Non-Surgical Submarginal Instrumentation of Peri-Implant Mucositis With Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite/Amino Acids and Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano, Andrea Blasi, Leopoldo Mauriello, Peter Windisch, Giovanni E Salvi, Anton Sculean, Luca Ramaglia","doi":"10.1111/clr.70109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70109","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effects of submarginal instrumentation (SI) with or without adjunctive delivery of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)/amino acids and cross-linked hyaluronic acid (xHyA) gel in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Forty implants supporting single-unit crowns diagnosed with PM in 40 patients were randomly assigned to test (SI + NaOCl/amino acids and xHyA) or control group (SI alone). The primary outcome was mean BoP change. Full-Mouth Plaque Score (FMPS), Full-Mouth Bleeding Score (FMBS), modified plaque index (mPlI), and probing depth (PD) were assessed as secondary outcomes. Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Disease resolution was also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two patients were lost during follow-up while 38 patients completed the study without adverse effects. After 6 months, all clinical parameters improved statistically significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). The change in mean BoP at 1, 3, and 6 months was 72.2% ± 24.3%, 70.4% ± 24.3%, and 63.0% ± 24.6% for test group and 70.0% ± 19.9%, 66.7% ± 24.8%, and 56.7% ± 30.8% for control group. The mean BoP change in experimental procedure was statistically significant at all investigation time points (p < 0.05). Regarding disease resolution, implants with initial PD ≤ 4 mm did not show differences among groups (p > 0.05); conversely, an initial PD = 5 mm yielded a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Disease resolution correlation with test group was statistically significant with a 3.77 odds ratio.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limitations of the present study, adjunctive delivery of NaOCl/amino acids and xHyA to SI yielded superior clinical outcomes compared with SI alone in the treatment of PM.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05926297.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147316619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dominick Moser, Engin Ozgur, Jennifer Tjokro, Clemens Raabe, Vivianne Chappuis, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Pablo Galindo-Moreno, Miguel Padial-Molina, Emilio Couso-Queiruga
Objectives: This retrospective study primarily evaluated whether early radiographic bone loss (ERBL) predicts progressive bone loss (PBL), and secondarily assessed its association with implant survival and peri-implant diseases.
Methods: Adults with dental implants who were followed for at least 5 years were included. Implants presenting ERBL, defined as apical migration of the interproximal marginal bone involving exposure of the implant rough surface before insertion of the final prosthesis, were classified as ERBL+; non-exposure group was defined as implants without evidence of ERBL (ERBL-). Regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations with PBL.
Results: A total of 261 implants, 87 ERBL+, and 174 ERBL- were included. [Correction added on 8 March 2026, after first publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected.] Mean follow-up periods were 8.8 ± 3.0 years for the ERBL+ and 11.5 ± 1.7 years for the ERBL-. ERBL+ exhibited significantly greater PBL than ERBL- (-1.6 ± 1.0 mm to -2.3 ± 1.7 mm vs. -0.4 ± 1.2 mm to -0.5 ± 1.2 mm; p < 0.001). Implant survival was lower in ERBL+ (67.8%) compared with ERBL- (98.3%; p < 0.001). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 63.2% of implants in the ERBL+ group versus 5.2% in ERBL- (p < 0.001), and 68.4% of patients versus 6.1% of ERBL- (p < 0.001). [Correction added on 8 March 2026, after first publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected.] ERBL was the strongest predictor of greater PBL (+1.46 mm; p < 0.0001). Male sex (+0.40 mm; p = 0.02), smoking (+0.61 mm; p = 0.004), each additional implant (+0.17 mm; p < 0.0001), single-crown restorations (+0.66 mm; p = 0.005), and bone-level implants (+0.32 mm; p = 0.005) were associated with increased PBL.
Conclusions: ERBL is a strong predictor of PBL and is associated with a higher risk of implant loss and peri-implantitis onset.
目的：本回顾性研究主要评估早期放射学骨质流失（ERBL）是否预测进行性骨质流失（PBL），其次评估其与种植体存活和种植体周围疾病的关系。方法：对种植体患者随访5年以上。出现ERBL的种植体被分类为ERBL+，定义为近端间边缘骨的根尖移动，包括植入最终假体之前暴露种植体的粗糙表面；非暴露组定义为无ERBL证据的植入物（ERBL-）。进行回归分析以评估与PBL的关系。结果：共植入物259个，ERBL+植入物87个，ERBL-植入物172个。ERBL+组平均随访时间为8.8±3.0年，ERBL-组平均随访时间为11.5±1.7年。结论：ERBL+比ERBL-表现出更大的PBL（-1.6±1.0 mm到-2.3±1.7 mm vs -0.4±1.2 mm到-0.5±1.2 mm）。结论：ERBL是PBL的一个强有力的预测因子，并且与更高的种植体丢失和种植体周围炎发病风险相关。
{"title":"Effect of Early Radiographic Bone Loss Before Loading on Implant-Related Outcomes: A Long-Term Retrospective Study.","authors":"Dominick Moser, Engin Ozgur, Jennifer Tjokro, Clemens Raabe, Vivianne Chappuis, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Pablo Galindo-Moreno, Miguel Padial-Molina, Emilio Couso-Queiruga","doi":"10.1111/clr.70112","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70112","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This retrospective study primarily evaluated whether early radiographic bone loss (ERBL) predicts progressive bone loss (PBL), and secondarily assessed its association with implant survival and peri-implant diseases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with dental implants who were followed for at least 5 years were included. Implants presenting ERBL, defined as apical migration of the interproximal marginal bone involving exposure of the implant rough surface before insertion of the final prosthesis, were classified as ERBL+; non-exposure group was defined as implants without evidence of ERBL (ERBL-). Regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations with PBL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 261 implants, 87 ERBL+, and 174 ERBL- were included. [Correction added on 8 March 2026, after first publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected.] Mean follow-up periods were 8.8 ± 3.0 years for the ERBL+ and 11.5 ± 1.7 years for the ERBL-. ERBL+ exhibited significantly greater PBL than ERBL- (-1.6 ± 1.0 mm to -2.3 ± 1.7 mm vs. -0.4 ± 1.2 mm to -0.5 ± 1.2 mm; p < 0.001). Implant survival was lower in ERBL+ (67.8%) compared with ERBL- (98.3%; p < 0.001). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 63.2% of implants in the ERBL+ group versus 5.2% in ERBL- (p < 0.001), and 68.4% of patients versus 6.1% of ERBL- (p < 0.001). [Correction added on 8 March 2026, after first publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected.] ERBL was the strongest predictor of greater PBL (+1.46 mm; p < 0.0001). Male sex (+0.40 mm; p = 0.02), smoking (+0.61 mm; p = 0.004), each additional implant (+0.17 mm; p < 0.0001), single-crown restorations (+0.66 mm; p = 0.005), and bone-level implants (+0.32 mm; p = 0.005) were associated with increased PBL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ERBL is a strong predictor of PBL and is associated with a higher risk of implant loss and peri-implantitis onset.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147302930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tonje Moen Eckhoff, Erik Klepsland Mauland, Anders Verket, Elisabeth Lind Melbye
Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a questionnaire assessing patient-reported outcomes following dental implant rehabilitation.
Material and methods: A questionnaire was mailed to patients 8 years posttreatment to assess experiences with dental implant therapy, including satisfaction, oral function, perceived pretreatment information and complications. Patients completed the questionnaire again during a clinical examination. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and corrected item-total correlations (CITC), while test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct-related validity was examined through associations between questionnaire domains and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) measured by OHIP-14.
Results: A total of 206 patients completed the questionnaire twice. For individual items, ICCs ranged from 0.39 to 0.75 and CITCs from 0.39 to 0.66. The full questionnaire had an alpha of 0.78 and an ICC of 0.78. Construct-related validity was supported through associations between the questionnaire domains patient satisfaction, pretreatment information and the OHIP-14 sum scores.
Conclusions: The questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability, good test-retest performance, and reasonable construct validity.
{"title":"Reliability and Construct Validity of a Questionnaire for Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Implant Dentistry.","authors":"Tonje Moen Eckhoff, Erik Klepsland Mauland, Anders Verket, Elisabeth Lind Melbye","doi":"10.1111/clr.70110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70110","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a questionnaire assessing patient-reported outcomes following dental implant rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A questionnaire was mailed to patients 8 years posttreatment to assess experiences with dental implant therapy, including satisfaction, oral function, perceived pretreatment information and complications. Patients completed the questionnaire again during a clinical examination. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and corrected item-total correlations (CITC), while test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct-related validity was examined through associations between questionnaire domains and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) measured by OHIP-14.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 206 patients completed the questionnaire twice. For individual items, ICCs ranged from 0.39 to 0.75 and CITCs from 0.39 to 0.66. The full questionnaire had an alpha of 0.78 and an ICC of 0.78. Construct-related validity was supported through associations between the questionnaire domains patient satisfaction, pretreatment information and the OHIP-14 sum scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability, good test-retest performance, and reasonable construct validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147282408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sophia E Vollath, Giorgina M Wiedmer, Clemens Raabe, Manrique Fonseca, Vivianne Chappuis, Maria B Asparuhova, Ningbo Zhao, Emilio Couso-Queiruga
Objectives: To evaluate the long-term prevalence of buccal ridge concavity (BRC) following implant placement with simultaneous contour bone augmentation (CBA).
Methods: Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.
Results: A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of -0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, -0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and -0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, p = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, p = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, p = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).
Conclusions: Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.
目的：评价种植体同步轮廓骨增强（CBA）术后颊嵴凹陷（BRC）的长期患病率。方法：本研究纳入了至少一颗单牙非磨牙种植体支持假体且未诊断为种植体周围炎的成年患者。收集临床、数字和患者报告的结果测量（PROMs）。使用专用软件在多个根尖冠状水平分析口腔内扫描以评估BRC的存在。结果：共分析186例患者（211个种植体），平均随访11.4±1.4年。100%的部位和患者均观察到BRC，粘膜边缘的平均值为-0.83±0.45 mm，根尖3 mm处为-0.62±0.39 mm，根尖5 mm处为-0.47±0.32 mm。多因素分析显示，男性在根尖3 mm处BRC增加（+0.165 mm, p = 0.003），前磨牙处BRC增加（+0.110 mm, p = 0.03），种植体≥12 mm处BRC增加（+0.141 mm, p = 0.008）。角化黏膜越大，BRC越小，牙冠骨质流失越大，BRC越高。前列腺癌患者对口腔美观、功能、治疗预期、整体手术的耐受性和口腔卫生均有较高的满意度；OHIP-14评分较低（2±4）。结论：种植体放置CBA不能完全恢复非磨牙部位的牙槽嵴体积，所有病例均显示BRC，特别是在冠状面。然而，患者报告的满意度仍然很高。
{"title":"Prevalence of Buccal Ridge Concavities Following Implant Placement With Contour Bone Augmentation: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Sophia E Vollath, Giorgina M Wiedmer, Clemens Raabe, Manrique Fonseca, Vivianne Chappuis, Maria B Asparuhova, Ningbo Zhao, Emilio Couso-Queiruga","doi":"10.1111/clr.70111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70111","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the long-term prevalence of buccal ridge concavity (BRC) following implant placement with simultaneous contour bone augmentation (CBA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of -0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, -0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and -0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, p = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, p = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, p = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147281374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paolo Nava, Hamoun Sabri, Parham Hazrati, Carlo Nava, Muhammad H. A. Saleh, Hom‐Lay Wang
Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of static, dynamic, and robotic computer‐assisted protocols in immediate implant placement (IIP), compared to freehand (FH) techniques. Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted for studies published through March 2025. Clinical studies on Computer‐Aided Implant Surgery (CAIS), reporting angular and/or linear deviations between the planned and actual implant position after IIP were included. Eligible designs comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non‐randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), prospective/retrospective cohort studies (Retro), and prospective/retrospective case series (PCS/RCS). A network meta‐analysis was performed to assess deviations in implant angulation, platform, and apex positions among FH, half‐guided static (HG‐sCAIS), fully‐guided static (FG‐sCAIS), dynamic (dCAIS), and robotic (rCAIS) protocols. Covariates such as jaw, site position, study design, and risk of bias were included. Two post hoc sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results Eighteen studies encompassing 780 immediately placed implants were analyzed (6 RCTs; 2 PCS; 7 RCS; 3 Retro). Compared with FH, every guided protocol significantly enhanced accuracy. Mean angular deviation decreased by 3.36° with rCAIS, 2.66° with dCAIS, 1.73° with HG‐sCAIS, and 1.85° with FG‐sCAIS ( p < 0.05 ). Corresponding reductions in platform deviation were 0.68, 0.71, 0.27, and 0.54 mm, while apex deviation decreased by 1.43, 1.32, 1.23, and 0.81 mm, respectively ( p < 0.05 ). rCAIS and dCAIS ranked highest across all metrics. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, guided surgery significantly improves the accuracy of immediate implant placement. rCAIS and dCAIS demonstrated the most favorable accuracy profiles, although sensitivity analyses restricted to higher‐quality evidence suggest that differences among guided protocols may be less pronounced.
{"title":"Accuracy of Static, Dynamic, and Robotic Guided Surgery in Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis","authors":"Paolo Nava, Hamoun Sabri, Parham Hazrati, Carlo Nava, Muhammad H. A. Saleh, Hom‐Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/clr.70100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70100","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of static, dynamic, and robotic computer‐assisted protocols in immediate implant placement (IIP), compared to freehand (FH) techniques. Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted for studies published through March 2025. Clinical studies on Computer‐Aided Implant Surgery (CAIS), reporting angular and/or linear deviations between the planned and actual implant position after IIP were included. Eligible designs comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non‐randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), prospective/retrospective cohort studies (Retro), and prospective/retrospective case series (PCS/RCS). A network meta‐analysis was performed to assess deviations in implant angulation, platform, and apex positions among FH, half‐guided static (HG‐sCAIS), fully‐guided static (FG‐sCAIS), dynamic (dCAIS), and robotic (rCAIS) protocols. Covariates such as jaw, site position, study design, and risk of bias were included. Two post hoc sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results Eighteen studies encompassing 780 immediately placed implants were analyzed (6 RCTs; 2 PCS; 7 RCS; 3 Retro). Compared with FH, every guided protocol significantly enhanced accuracy. Mean angular deviation decreased by 3.36° with rCAIS, 2.66° with dCAIS, 1.73° with HG‐sCAIS, and 1.85° with FG‐sCAIS ( <jats:italic>p < 0.05</jats:italic> ). Corresponding reductions in platform deviation were 0.68, 0.71, 0.27, and 0.54 mm, while apex deviation decreased by 1.43, 1.32, 1.23, and 0.81 mm, respectively ( <jats:italic>p < 0.05</jats:italic> ). rCAIS and dCAIS ranked highest across all metrics. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, guided surgery significantly improves the accuracy of immediate implant placement. rCAIS and dCAIS demonstrated the most favorable accuracy profiles, although sensitivity analyses restricted to higher‐quality evidence suggest that differences among guided protocols may be less pronounced.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"180 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146222854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Minghua Xu, Siqi Bao, Yinjie Qian, Chongsheng Qiu, Jianwei Zhang, Misi Si
Objectives The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of probing depth before (PPD‐1) and following (PPD‐2) removal of the prosthesis in identifying the presence of peri‐implantitis and to assess the factors influencing peri‐implant probing. Materials and Methods A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 83 implants analyzed. Peri‐implantitis was diagnosed based on bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP) with marginal bone loss (MBL). Using radiographs, the following features were determined: MBL, emergence angle (EA), and emergence profile (EP). Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic ability of probing‐related parameters in detecting peri‐implantitis. Associations between PPD differences and risk factors were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model. Results PPD‐2 was significantly higher than PPD‐1, with a mean difference of 0.887 mm ( p < 0.0001). The maximum PPD‐2 showed higher diagnostic accuracy than the maximum PPD‐1 ( p < 0.05). When combining PPD with BoP/SoP, the most accurate combinations with and without prostheses showed no significant difference in AUROC (0.709 vs. 0.753). A statistically higher PPD difference was observed in concave EP, anterior implants, and peri‐implantitis ( p < 0.01). Conclusions The presence of prostheses significantly influenced peri‐implant probing depth, and probing depth without prostheses yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for peri‐implantitis. Peri‐implantitis, a concave restorative profile, and anterior implants may further contribute to the increased probing depth differences. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT07004517
目的本研究旨在比较假体取出前（PPD‐1）和取出后（PPD‐2）探探深度诊断种植体周围炎的准确性，并评估影响种植体周围探探的因素。材料与方法本研究共纳入61例患者，分析了83颗种植体。种植体周围炎的诊断是基于探查出血和/或化脓（BoP/SoP）伴有边缘性骨质流失（MBL）。通过x线片，确定以下特征：MBL、出射角（EA）和出射剖面（EP）。计算敏感性、特异性和受者工作特征曲线下面积（AUROC），以评估探查相关参数在检测种植体周围炎中的诊断能力。使用广义线性混合模型评估PPD差异与危险因素之间的关系。结果PPD‐2明显高于PPD‐1，平均差异为0.887 mm （p < 0.0001）。最大PPD‐2的诊断准确率高于最大PPD‐1 （p < 0.05）。当PPD联合BoP/SoP时，最准确的联合和不联合假体的AUROC差异无统计学意义（0.709 vs. 0.753）。凹型EP、前牙种植体和种植体周围炎的PPD差异有统计学意义（p < 0.01）。结论假体的存在显著影响种植体周围探查深度，无假体的探查深度对种植体周围炎的诊断准确性更高。种植体周围炎、凹形修复体和前路种植体可能进一步导致探探深度差异的增加。临床试验注册网站：NCT07004517
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Peri‐Implant Probing With or Without Prostheses in Detecting Peri‐Implantitis","authors":"Minghua Xu, Siqi Bao, Yinjie Qian, Chongsheng Qiu, Jianwei Zhang, Misi Si","doi":"10.1111/clr.70104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70104","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of probing depth before (PPD‐1) and following (PPD‐2) removal of the prosthesis in identifying the presence of peri‐implantitis and to assess the factors influencing peri‐implant probing. Materials and Methods A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 83 implants analyzed. Peri‐implantitis was diagnosed based on bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP) with marginal bone loss (MBL). Using radiographs, the following features were determined: MBL, emergence angle (EA), and emergence profile (EP). Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic ability of probing‐related parameters in detecting peri‐implantitis. Associations between PPD differences and risk factors were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model. Results PPD‐2 was significantly higher than PPD‐1, with a mean difference of 0.887 mm ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.0001). The maximum PPD‐2 showed higher diagnostic accuracy than the maximum PPD‐1 ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.05). When combining PPD with BoP/SoP, the most accurate combinations with and without prostheses showed no significant difference in AUROC (0.709 vs. 0.753). A statistically higher PPD difference was observed in concave EP, anterior implants, and peri‐implantitis ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.01). Conclusions The presence of prostheses significantly influenced peri‐implant probing depth, and probing depth without prostheses yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for peri‐implantitis. Peri‐implantitis, a concave restorative profile, and anterior implants may further contribute to the increased probing depth differences. Trial Registration <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" xlink:href=\"http://clinicaltrials.gov\">ClinicalTrials.gov</jats:ext-link> : NCT07004517","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"180 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146215579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Vincent J. J. Donker, Henny J. A. Meijer, Arjan Vissink, Gerry M. Raghoebar
Introduction In single‐tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone, extensive bone defects require alveolar ridge reconstruction. A digital workflow involving CBCT and intraoral optical scanning enables a three‐dimensional assessment, prosthetically driven implant positioning, computer‐assisted implant surgery, and prefabrication of a temporary restoration for immediate provisionalization. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes of delayed implant placement and immediate provisionalization in reconstructed alveolar ridges using a digital workflow. Materials and Methods In a prospective case series, 30 patients with a > 5 mm buccal bone defect underwent alveolar ridge reconstruction. After 4 months, implant placement was performed using a digital workflow, followed by immediate provisionalization with a prefabricated temporary restoration, and definitive restoration 3 months later. The clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes were assessed pre‐treatment, 6 weeks after provisionalization, and 1 month and 1 year following definitive restoration. Results Wound healing was uneventful in 90% of cases (10% showed mild oedema). One early implant failure occurred (implant survival rate 97%). After 1 year, restoration survival and success rates were 100% and 97%. Peri‐implant tissues were mainly healthy. The mean (SD) Pink and White Esthetic Score (scale 0–20) was 14.0 (2.9). The mean (SD) marginal bone level change was −0.25 mm (0.38) mesially and −0.21 mm (0.45) distally. The median buccal bone thickness was > 1.5 mm. Patient satisfaction (scale 0–10) was 9.3 (0.9). Conclusion A digital workflow offers favorable short‐term clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes for single‐tooth implants after alveolar ridge reconstruction. Trial Registration Registered in the National Trial Register: NL8264
{"title":"Implant Placement and Immediate Provisionalization After Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction in the Aesthetic Zone Using a Digital Workflow: A 1‐Year Prospective Case Series Study","authors":"Vincent J. J. Donker, Henny J. A. Meijer, Arjan Vissink, Gerry M. Raghoebar","doi":"10.1111/clr.70099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70099","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In single‐tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone, extensive bone defects require alveolar ridge reconstruction. A digital workflow involving CBCT and intraoral optical scanning enables a three‐dimensional assessment, prosthetically driven implant positioning, computer‐assisted implant surgery, and prefabrication of a temporary restoration for immediate provisionalization. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes of delayed implant placement and immediate provisionalization in reconstructed alveolar ridges using a digital workflow. Materials and Methods In a prospective case series, 30 patients with a > 5 mm buccal bone defect underwent alveolar ridge reconstruction. After 4 months, implant placement was performed using a digital workflow, followed by immediate provisionalization with a prefabricated temporary restoration, and definitive restoration 3 months later. The clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes were assessed pre‐treatment, 6 weeks after provisionalization, and 1 month and 1 year following definitive restoration. Results Wound healing was uneventful in 90% of cases (10% showed mild oedema). One early implant failure occurred (implant survival rate 97%). After 1 year, restoration survival and success rates were 100% and 97%. Peri‐implant tissues were mainly healthy. The mean (SD) Pink and White Esthetic Score (scale 0–20) was 14.0 (2.9). The mean (SD) marginal bone level change was −0.25 mm (0.38) mesially and −0.21 mm (0.45) distally. The median buccal bone thickness was > 1.5 mm. Patient satisfaction (scale 0–10) was 9.3 (0.9). Conclusion A digital workflow offers favorable short‐term clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes for single‐tooth implants after alveolar ridge reconstruction. Trial Registration Registered in the National Trial Register: NL8264","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146198622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dongseob Lee, Sungrak Ahn, Jin Young Park, Seung‐Ju Lee, Yong‐Moo Lee, Ki‐Tae Koo, Hyung Jin Lee, Shin Kyu Lee, Ji‐Young Joo, Jungwon Lee
Objective This study evaluated the 5‐year survival of bone‐level, internal connection, sandblasted and acid‐etched (SA) implants and identified site‐ and patient‐related risk factors for implant failure in a multicenter cohort. Materials and Methods A total of 3555 tapered bone‐level SA implants were placed between 2012 and 2018 at two university dental hospitals. The observation period spanned from placement to removal or the last follow‐up (final date: May 15, 2025). Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox regression with shared frailty terms to adjust for clustering within patients. Results The 5‐year cumulative survival rate was 98.8% at the implant level and 99.0% at the patient level. Tooth loss due to periodontitis significantly increased implant failure risk (adjusted HR 3.57, 95% CI: 1.49–8.54, p < 0.01). Implants placed without guided bone regeneration (GBR) had a lower risk of failure than those with GBR (adjusted HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18–0.96, p = 0.04). Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) compliance also influenced outcomes (adjusted HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.32–4.18, p < 0.01). Stratified analysis showed a marked survival benefit of regular SPT among patients with periodontitis‐related tooth loss (98.8% vs. 96.3%, p = 0.004). Conclusion Bone‐level internal connection SA implants demonstrated favorable long‐term survival. However, periodontitis‐related tooth loss, GBR, and SPT compliance significantly affected implant longevity, emphasizing individualized risk assessment and continuous maintenance care. The absence of longitudinal radiographic bone‐level data limits further evaluation of peri‐implant bone stability.
目的：本研究在多中心队列中评估骨水平、内连接、喷砂和酸蚀（SA）种植体的5年生存率，并确定种植体失败的部位和患者相关危险因素。材料和方法2012年至2018年间，在两所大学牙科医院共植入了3555颗锥形骨水平SA种植体。观察期从放置到移除或最后一次随访（最终日期：2025年5月15日）。生存结果分析使用Kaplan-Meier估计和Cox回归与共同脆弱项，以调整患者内聚类。结果5年累积生存率在种植体水平为98.8%，在患者水平为99.0%。牙周炎导致的牙齿脱落显著增加种植体失败的风险（调整后危险度3.57,95% CI: 1.49-8.54, p < 0.01）。无引导骨再生（GBR）种植体的失败风险低于有引导骨再生（GBR）种植体（调整后危险度0.42,95% CI: 0.18-0.96, p = 0.04）。支持牙周治疗（SPT）依从性也影响结果（调整后比为2.35,95% CI: 1.32-4.18, p < 0.01）。分层分析显示，在与牙周炎相关的牙齿脱落患者中，常规SPT的生存获益显著（98.8%比96.3%,p = 0.004）。结论骨水平内连接SA种植体具有良好的长期存活率。然而，牙周炎相关的牙齿脱落、GBR和SPT依从性显著影响种植体寿命，强调个体化风险评估和持续维护护理。缺乏纵向x线骨水平数据限制了对种植体周围骨稳定性的进一步评估。
{"title":"Supportive Periodontal Therapy Improves Implant Survival in Patients With a History of Periodontitis: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study of 3555 Implants","authors":"Dongseob Lee, Sungrak Ahn, Jin Young Park, Seung‐Ju Lee, Yong‐Moo Lee, Ki‐Tae Koo, Hyung Jin Lee, Shin Kyu Lee, Ji‐Young Joo, Jungwon Lee","doi":"10.1111/clr.70103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70103","url":null,"abstract":"Objective This study evaluated the 5‐year survival of bone‐level, internal connection, sandblasted and acid‐etched (SA) implants and identified site‐ and patient‐related risk factors for implant failure in a multicenter cohort. Materials and Methods A total of 3555 tapered bone‐level SA implants were placed between 2012 and 2018 at two university dental hospitals. The observation period spanned from placement to removal or the last follow‐up (final date: May 15, 2025). Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox regression with shared frailty terms to adjust for clustering within patients. Results The 5‐year cumulative survival rate was 98.8% at the implant level and 99.0% at the patient level. Tooth loss due to periodontitis significantly increased implant failure risk (adjusted HR 3.57, 95% CI: 1.49–8.54, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.01). Implants placed without guided bone regeneration (GBR) had a lower risk of failure than those with GBR (adjusted HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18–0.96, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.04). Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) compliance also influenced outcomes (adjusted HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.32–4.18, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.01). Stratified analysis showed a marked survival benefit of regular SPT among patients with periodontitis‐related tooth loss (98.8% vs. 96.3%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.004). Conclusion Bone‐level internal connection SA implants demonstrated favorable long‐term survival. However, periodontitis‐related tooth loss, GBR, and SPT compliance significantly affected implant longevity, emphasizing individualized risk assessment and continuous maintenance care. The absence of longitudinal radiographic bone‐level data limits further evaluation of peri‐implant bone stability.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"334 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146196387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Almir Kashta, Sebastian‐Edgar Baumeister, Benjamin Ehmke, Stefan Lars Reckelkamm
Objectives This study assessed whether periodontitis stage and grade are associated with long‐term implant survival in periodontally compromised patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted among 362 periodontitis patients who received 1106 implants at the University Clinic Münster, Germany, with a median follow‐up of 85.5 months (range: 3.6–236.4). Periodontitis stage and grade were assessed based on clinical and radiographic data at the first clinical visit. Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to analyze implant survival. Results A total of 85 implants (7.69%) failed, with nearly half of these losses occurring within the first six months (failed osseointegration). Cumulative survival rates were 95.8% at 60 months, 91.1% at 120 months, and 82.6% at 180 months. Grading, but not staging, was significantly associated with implant loss. Patients classified as grade C had a higher risk of implant loss at any given time during follow‐up than patients with grade A or B (hazard ratio = 2.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.18–6.54). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that periodontitis, particularly in terms of grading as defined by the current classification, is a significant risk factor for implant loss, even in patients undergoing periodontal therapy. Both clinicians and patients should consider these risk factors during treatment planning, as they can substantially impact implant survival. Nevertheless, dental implants remain a reliable and predictable therapeutic option, even for patients with severe periodontitis.
{"title":"Long‐Term Implant Survival in Periodontitis","authors":"Almir Kashta, Sebastian‐Edgar Baumeister, Benjamin Ehmke, Stefan Lars Reckelkamm","doi":"10.1111/clr.70105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70105","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives This study assessed whether periodontitis stage and grade are associated with long‐term implant survival in periodontally compromised patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted among 362 periodontitis patients who received 1106 implants at the University Clinic Münster, Germany, with a median follow‐up of 85.5 months (range: 3.6–236.4). Periodontitis stage and grade were assessed based on clinical and radiographic data at the first clinical visit. Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to analyze implant survival. Results A total of 85 implants (7.69%) failed, with nearly half of these losses occurring within the first six months (failed osseointegration). Cumulative survival rates were 95.8% at 60 months, 91.1% at 120 months, and 82.6% at 180 months. Grading, but not staging, was significantly associated with implant loss. Patients classified as grade C had a higher risk of implant loss at any given time during follow‐up than patients with grade A or B (hazard ratio = 2.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.18–6.54). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that periodontitis, particularly in terms of grading as defined by the current classification, is a significant risk factor for implant loss, even in patients undergoing periodontal therapy. Both clinicians and patients should consider these risk factors during treatment planning, as they can substantially impact implant survival. Nevertheless, dental implants remain a reliable and predictable therapeutic option, even for patients with severe periodontitis.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"131 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146196390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Beatriz de Tapia, Álvaro Babiano, Maria Vittoria Oreglia, Cristina Valles, Jose Nart
Aim To determine whether oral hygiene instructions (OHI) alone can be effective in the treatment of peri‐implant mucositis (PM). Material and Methods A randomized clinical trial with 56 PM patients was conducted. Participants were assigned to OHI ( n = 28) or OHI + Mechanical Instrumentation (MI) ( n = 28). Clinical [modified bleeding index (mBI), disease resolution] and microbiological parameters were assessed at baseline (T1), 1 month (T2), and 3 months (T3). Standardized periapical radiographs were taken at T1 and T3. Outcomes were analyzed at patient‐ and implant‐level. Results 48 patients with 118 implants were analyzed (52 in OHI; 66 in OHI + MI). At T3, success rates were 39.1% (OHI) and 56% (OHI + MI) at the patient level, and 36.4% (OHI) versus 67.3% (OHI + MI) at the implant level. Both groups showed a significant reduction in mBI ( p < 0.001). Intergroup differences were not statistically significant, though greater divergence was noted at T3. At the patient level, higher FMPI/FMBI at 3 months predicted lower success ( p < 0.05), whereas compliance improved outcomes (OR = 11.4, p = 0.004). At the implant level, failure was associated with OHI‐only therapy, non‐compliance, and higher mPI (all p = 0.001). History of periodontitis was a negative prognostic factor, linked to higher mBI at T3 ( p = 0.010). Conclusions OHI achieved resolution of PM in a considerable proportion of patients, particularly among compliant individuals. However, a history of periodontitis and posterior implant location negatively influenced outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of patient adherence and implant accessibility, while reaffirming the critical adjunctive role of MI in optimizing therapeutic success.
{"title":"Impact of Oral Hygiene Instructions in the Resolution of Peri‐Implant Mucositis. A Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Beatriz de Tapia, Álvaro Babiano, Maria Vittoria Oreglia, Cristina Valles, Jose Nart","doi":"10.1111/clr.70098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70098","url":null,"abstract":"Aim To determine whether oral hygiene instructions (OHI) alone can be effective in the treatment of peri‐implant mucositis (PM). Material and Methods A randomized clinical trial with 56 PM patients was conducted. Participants were assigned to OHI ( <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 28) or OHI + Mechanical Instrumentation (MI) ( <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 28). Clinical [modified bleeding index (mBI), disease resolution] and microbiological parameters were assessed at baseline (T1), 1 month (T2), and 3 months (T3). Standardized periapical radiographs were taken at T1 and T3. Outcomes were analyzed at patient‐ and implant‐level. Results 48 patients with 118 implants were analyzed (52 in OHI; 66 in OHI + MI). At T3, success rates were 39.1% (OHI) and 56% (OHI + MI) at the patient level, and 36.4% (OHI) versus 67.3% (OHI + MI) at the implant level. Both groups showed a significant reduction in mBI ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001). Intergroup differences were not statistically significant, though greater divergence was noted at T3. At the patient level, higher FMPI/FMBI at 3 months predicted lower success ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.05), whereas compliance improved outcomes (OR = 11.4, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.004). At the implant level, failure was associated with OHI‐only therapy, non‐compliance, and higher mPI (all <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.001). History of periodontitis was a negative prognostic factor, linked to higher mBI at T3 ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.010). Conclusions OHI achieved resolution of PM in a considerable proportion of patients, particularly among compliant individuals. However, a history of periodontitis and posterior implant location negatively influenced outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of patient adherence and implant accessibility, while reaffirming the critical adjunctive role of MI in optimizing therapeutic success.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146196388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号