International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants最新文献

Purpose: To assess the thickness of the palatal bone wall of maxillary anterior teeth in relation to age, sex, and tooth type.

Materials and methods: A total of 100 CBCT images of patients ≥ 18 years of age were used. The thickness of the palatal bone at the maxillary canines and incisors was assessed perpendicular to the long axis of the teeth at three locations: 4 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ; MP1), halfway between the CEJ and the root apex (MP2), and at the root apex (MP3).

Results: At the MP1 site, 96% of the maxillary anterior teeth had a palatal bone thickness of < 1 mm, with a mean thickness of 0.5 mm. At the MP2 and MP3 sites, 86% and 100% of the teeth had ≥ 1 mm bone thickness, and the means were 2 and 5 mm, respectively. There were no significant differences among the age or gender groups. Maxillary canines showed significantly greater bone thickness than maxillary incisors, particularly at MP2 and MP3 sites.

Conclusion: Most of the examined teeth had thin palatal bone at the MP1 measurement site, and maxillary canines showed significantly thicker palatal bone than maxillary incisors. This finding should be considered when treatment planning for immediate implants in the maxillary anterior segment.

Purpose: To evaluate a novel proof-of-principle technique of simultaneous bone regeneration and implant placement in severely damaged sockets.

Materials and methods: This study consisted of patients who required a single implant and presented with severe facial bone loss. Individuals were randomly assigned to either the immediate or delayed implant placement protocol. Socket reconstruction and simultaneous implant placement were performed through periosteal-guided bone regeneration. Implants were encased in a customized shield of autogenous cortical bone harvested from an adjacent site. Re-entry surgery was performed at 12 to 18 weeks. Peri-implant tissues and pink esthetics were assessed following established success criteria.

Results: Of the 34 patients treated, 28 patients-consisting of 15 women and 13 men with an average age of 50.8 ± 4.5 years-continued to the final follow-up. All individuals showed new facial cortical bone regeneration at second-stage implant surgery after an average healing time of 14.9 ± 2.2 weeks (range: 12 to 18 weeks). Implants remained stable after loading. Success rates were 100% at 12 months. Mean pink esthetic score (PES) was 7.8 ± 1.2 (range: 6 to 9 on a scale of 0 to 10). Linear regression analysis showed that provisionalization and attachment loss are independent risk factors affecting pink esthetics (P < .01). Mild and moderate/severe attachment loss decrease pink esthetic scores by 0.9 and 1.7 points, respectively (95% CI: 0.2-1.5; P < .01). The use of provisional restorations improves pink esthetic scores by 1.6 points (95% CI: 0.8-2.4; P < .001). A PES > 7 was four and five times more likely to be expected for delay and immediate implants, respectively, if the implant had a provisional restoration delivered post-second-stage (RR = 4 to 5; 95% CI: 1-31; P = .07; P = .02). Cramér's V test showed a strong association between lack of implant provisionals and low pink esthetic scores (≤ 7, value = 0.7; P = .02). Facial implant transparency at follow-up was absent, and all implants had a band of keratinized tissue > 2 mm.

Conclusion: Facial bone regeneration and simultaneous implant placement is feasible in severely damaged sockets through periosteal-guided bone regeneration after a short healing period following immediate or delayed protocols. The assisted regenerated intrasocket bone allows for functional implant stability. Adjacent tooth attachment loss and lack of implant provisionalization negatively impacts pink esthetics. The proposed approach decreases costs, morbidity, and treatment duration and eliminates the need for multi-stage approaches.

Purpose: To summarize the evidence and determine the most effective impression technique for implant-supported prostheses in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially and completely edentulous arches.

Materials and methods: The searches were performed independently up to April 30, 2021 by two review authors through the Cochrane Oral Health Review, MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, and Science Direct databases. Moreover, manual and gray literature searches were performed to identify further potential reviews. Only English language-based systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses evaluating the different dental implant impression techniques were included. The outcomes assessed were accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference. The methodologic quality of the included reviews was investigated by using the R-AMSTAR tool, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was assessed by calculating the percentage of corrected covered area (CCA) as proposed by Pieper et al.⁶⁴ Results: The qualitative analysis included a total of 28 reviews, 8 of which included meta-analyses, published between 2008 and 2021, involving a total of 42 clinical trials and 203 laboratory studies. Digital vs conventional implant impression techniques were compared in 17 reviews, different digital impressions in 3 reviews, and different conventional impression techniques in the remaining reviews. Overall, the methodologic quality assessed by using the R-AMSTAR tool was moderate (mean: 26.7 ± 5.5) with slight overlap of primary studies (CCA; 5.23%).

Conclusion: Within an overall moderate methodologic quality, the digital implant impressions showed favorable outcomes in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially edentulous arches involving three or fewer implants. However, the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions involving multiple implants is not satisfactory and needs significant improvements. Hence, future studies following stringent guidelines and robust methodology are recommended to substantiate the findings of this overview and provide a high level of evidence.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of a simple nonsurgical procedure for the treatment of peri-implantitis.

Materials and methods: A total of 30 implants across 24 patients diagnosed with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis were treated using a chitosan brush with adjunctive chemicals, ie, 3% hydrogen peroxide and a tetracycline slurry. The treatment was performed a total of three times, with intervals of approximately 3 weeks.

Results: Results showed improvement in both the clinical attachment level (CAL) and bleeding on probing score between the baseline and the re-examinations between 9 months and up to 43 months (mean 26.8 months) after treatment. The mean CAL at baseline was 3.4 mm (range: 1 to 8 mm), while the mean CAL during the final examination was 1.4 mm (range: 0 to 5 mm), demonstrating a mean reduction of CAL of 2 mm (range: 1 to 7 mm; P < .001). Of the analyzed implant sites, 72% demonstrated radiographic signs of osseous defect fill varying between 0.1 and 2.2 mm (mean: 1.0 mm).

Conclusion: The results show that this novel treatment strategy may serve as a nonsurgical alternative to reduce parameters of inflammation around implants with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis.

Dental implants present a viable treatment option for the replacement of partial and full edentulism. Since their initial creation in the 1960s, implants have proceeded to become popular among both patients and dental practitioners due to their high success and survival rates. Despite the promising results, there remains some patient hesitation toward the acceptance of implant treatment. This hesitance mainly stems from four key factors that have greatly influenced patient decision-making: financial barriers, awareness and cultural sensitivity issues, treatment timespan, and the varying possible complications. Financial barriers generally arise from the lack of insurance benefits for the surgical aspect of treatment and the differing socioeconomic statuses of the patient population. Though dental implants have become more widespread, public knowledge of the matter is still insufficient. Patients may have altered conceptions of the procedure due to insufficiently credible information sources. In addition, dental practitioners need to consider the cultural restrictions that may be existent for some patients. The long timespan of the dental implant treatment, including healing time, may result in some patients opting for fixed or removable prostheses, which have comparatively shorter treatment spans. Biomechanical overload, infection, and inflammation are varying types of complications that alter osseointegration, ultimately leading to many complications, such as peri-implantitis. These universal barriers may hinder patient acceptance of implant treatment. However, as dental health care professionals, it is important to understand this hesitance and help mitigate these obstacles through patient education and continual reassurance and support.

Purpose: To evaluate an alternative cutting, progressive thread design to increase primary stability in low-density bone.

Materials and methods: Four different implants with different macrogeometries (Nobel Biocare Active [NA] Internal RP implants [4.3 × 11.5 mm], Straumann BLX Roxolid RB implants [4.5 × 10 mm], Astra Tech Implant EV implants [4.2 × 11 mm], and PrimeTaper [PT 4.2 × 11 mm]) were placed in simulated osteotomies and extraction sockets in synthetic bone (Sawbones) according to the manufacturers' protocol. Insertion torque and ISQ values were measured using Implantmed Plus motor and Ostell IDX, respectively. Insertion time was recorded. Average values were calculated and compared using ANOVA and Tukey test.

Results: Insertion torque (range: 5 to 44 Ncm) increased with increasing synthetic bone density for all implants. Different ISQ values in synthetic low-density bone were not observed in higher-density synthetic bone. Insertion torque of all implants was reduced when implants were placed in simulated sockets compared to simulated osteotomies. In both low-density and higher-density synthetic bone, the primary stability of PrimeTaper implants with cutting and progressive thread design was equivalent to that of the Nobel Biocare NobelActive implant with compressive thread design and greater than the BLX implant with compressive thread design.

Conclusion: Different implant macrogeometries obtain relatively high primary stability in low-density bone when measured by ISQ. Doublethread implant designs reduce insertion times in higher-density bone. A cutting and progressive compressing thread design provides density-sensing performance compared to aggressive condensing thread designs. This macrogeometry can achieve high primary stability associated with modest insertion torque compared to aggressive threaded implant designs known to attain the highest insertion torque. The presence of multiple cutting threads may offer advantages in obtaining primary stability in low-density bone.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of autogenous and allogeneic demineralized dentin matrices loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2; auto- and allo-DDM/rhBMP-2) by measuring the buccal marginal bone resorption around dental implants.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent dental implant placement with auto-DDM/rhBMP-2 as the control group and allo-DDM/rhBMP-2 as the experimental group. The primary outcome was buccal marginal bone resorption on CBCT. The resorption was calculated during T0 (from surgery to prosthetic loading), T1 (during the first year after loading), and T2 (during the second year after loading). The secondary outcome was the histologic analysis of five specimens of each group, obtained during the prosthetic procedure.

Results: Among the 103 implants, 61 and 42 implants were placed with auto- and allo-DDM/rhBMP-2 matrices, respectively. The resorptions of all periods were similar between the groups (T0: 0.65 ± 0.71 and 0.67 ± 0.81 mm, T1: 0.55 ± 0.60 and 0.59 ± 0.81 mm, and T2: 0.29 ± 0.45 and 0.20 ± 0.30 mm with auto- and allo-DDM/rhBMP-2, respectively). The histologic and histomorphometric analysis revealed similar osteoinductive aspects and proportions of new bone between the groups.

Conclusion: Allo-DDM/rhBMP-2 showed comparable outcomes in terms of buccal marginal bone resorption to auto-DDM/rhBMP-2 during the second year after loading.

Purpose: To compare three different types of custom-made root-analog immediate (RAI) dental implants.

Materials and methods: Patients with fractured and/or nonrestorable teeth with uncompromised periodontal ligaments were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were as follows: any uncontrolled systemic disease, bruxism, poor oral hygiene, active periodontal disease, and/or chronic marginal periodontitis. CBCT scans of the teeth were taken, and the datasets were used to reconstruct 3D models that were transferred to 3D modeling software to design the RAIs. Group 1 (GR1) consisted of zirconia RAIs manufactured using a computer numerical control (CNC) machine, group 2 (GR2) consisted of titanium RAIs formed by using a CNC machine, and group 3 (GR3) consisted of titanium RAIs manufactured by using direct laser metal sintering (DLMS) technology, all of which were placed immediately after tooth extraction. Primary stability was measured by using Periotest M. Metal-ceramic single crowns were cemented 3 months later. All implants were evaluated clinically and radiologically 1 year after implant placement.

Results: A total of 51 patients (18 men, 33 women) aged between 18 and 66 years (average 34.2 years) were included in the study. In 4 patients, RAIs could not be placed due to the lack of primary stability, and they were excluded. In the remaining 47 patients, the custom-made RAIs (GR1: n = 21, GR2: n = 17, GR3: n = 18, total: n = 56) were placed into fresh extraction sockets immediately after tooth extraction for each patient. Primary stability was achieved. Periotest values (PTV) were between -1.4 and -6.2 (mean -3.3). The mean initial PTV (PTV0) was -2.3 ± 1.8 for the failed implants and -4.5 ± 0.8 for the surviving implants. PTV0 was an independent risk factor (HR 3.61, 95% CI: 1.56-8.35, P = .004) for survival rate, which was 33.3%, 70.6%, and 44.4% for GR1, GR2, and GR3, respectively. The overall survival rate was 48.2%. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the probability of survival (P = .051). The survival rate was significantly lower for anterior RAIs (P < .001). Clinically healthy gingival margins were observed without any signs of periodontitis or implant mobility, and the mean PTV was -4.0 ± 1.9 in surviving implants, whereas the mean marginal bone loss was 1.3 ± 0.6 mm (median, 0.8; 95% CI: 0.1-3.4) at the 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion: This study was the first attempt to compare different RAI manufacturing techniques and biomaterials in the literature. Although the probability of survival was not statistically significant between the groups, the survival rate in GR2 was higher than in the other two groups. Nevertheless, the overall survival rate was significantly lower (48.2%) than in the previous reports. Primary stability was an independent risk factor for failure. Further studies with the minimized variables betwee

When a clinician sees a patient with a complication, they often go through a Bayesian style of logic, most likely without even knowing it. They assess whether they have seen the complication before, provide an intervention based on historical knowledge of what leads to improvement, and then later assess how the intervention is performed. This process, which is routine in clinical practice, can be mathematically extended into an alternative way of performing statistical analyses to assess clinical research. However, this process is contrary to the most common statistical methods used in dental research: frequentist statistics. Though powerful, frequentist methods come with advantages and disadvantages. Bayesian statistics are an alternative method, one that mirrors how we as researchers think and process new information. In this primer, a walkthrough of Bayesian statistics is performed by constructing priors, defining the likelihood, and using the posterior result to draw conclusions on parameters of interest. The motivating example for this walkthrough was a Bayesian analog to logistic regression, fit using a simulated dental-related dataset of 50 patients who received a dental implant-classified as either within or outside normal limits-from practitioners who did or did not receive a training course in implant placement. The results of the Bayesian and traditional frequentist logistic regression models were compared, resulting in very similar conclusions regarding which parameters seemed to be strongly associated with the outcome.

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of ultraviolet (UV) treatment and alendronate immersion on the osseointegration of dental implants and mucosal attachment of dental implant abutments using a mongrel dog model.

Materials and methods: A total of 48 sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) titanium dental implants and 48 machined surface healing abutments in four male mongrel dogs were prepared. Implants and healing abutments were divided into four groups (n = 12 per group). The control (CON) group did not undergo additional surface treatments. The UV group was treated with UV for 15 minutes, and the alendronate-immersed (AN) group was soaked in 10-3 M alendronate for 24 hours. The UV treatment and alendronate soaking (UVAN) group was treated with alendronate, followed by UV irradiation. All implants were placed in the mandible of mongrel dogs, and the animals were sacrificed at 4 and 8 weeks postoperatively. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone density, and connective tissue attachment were measured.

Results: In cortical bone, the UV group exhibited significantly higher BIC compared to the CON and AN groups (P < .05). In contrast, the AN and UVAN groups did not have significantly higher BIC. In the trabecular bone, there was no statistical difference between the groups. No significant increase in bone density and connective tissue attachment was shown in any group.

Conclusion: UV treatment of SLA surface implants significantly increased osseointegration in cortical bone. The alendronate immersion did not increase osseointegration, and there was no synergic effect with UV treatment. Further, UV treatment and alendronate immersion of machined healing abutments did not significantly increase connective tissue attachment.