Clinical implant dentistry and related research最新文献

Objective: Soft tissue seal around implants ensures stable osseointegration and a long-term survival of dental implants. Different surface modification and decontamination for implant abutments were endorsed in order to improve peri-implant soft tissue healing, such as laser, plasma spray, acid etching, and steaming. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response of peri-implant soft tissue to titanium abutments treated with Erbium-doped: Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Er:YAG) laser versus plasma spray.

Methods: Twenty-four patients who required implant placement in the maxillary arch participated in this study. Patients were divided into three groups, abutments treated with Er:YAG laser versus cold plasma spray and untreated abutments. Fourteen days following the implant abutment insertion, soft tissue peri-implant biopsies were taken for histological, histochemical, and immunohistochemical evaluation. Scanning electron microscopy was done for the abutments; plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed 14 days and 3 months following final restoration.

Results: Regarding the histological results, the least mean inflammatory cell count was in the plasma group (174.09 ± 40.67), followed by the laser group (654.27 ± 85.95) and the control group (852.00 ± 117.98), with statistically significant differences between them. The mean area fraction of collagen fibers showed the highest value in the plasma group (9.73 ± 1.91), followed by the laser group (3.25 ± 0.49), while the lowest value was found in the control group (1.17 ± 0.51). The immunohistochemical expression of E-cadherin was significantly higher and uniformly distributed in the plasma group (42.4 ± 11.2%) followed by the laser group (15.4 ± 4.07%) and the control group (6.8 ± 1.7%). SEM analysis of healing abutments showed fibroblast-like cells, which were more developed with dense fibers in the plasma group; laser group fibers showed fewer and more delicate fibers than the plasma group, while no fibers were detected in the control group.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this feasibility study, the present data concluded that plasma spray and Erbium: YAG laser can be used for abutment surface treatment to achieve better peri-implant soft tissue healing. Clinically and histologically, plasma spray showed a better effect on the peri-implant soft tissues by reducing the inflammatory reaction, promoting collagen fiber formation, higher fibroblast-like cell attachment, and upregulating E-cadherin expression than Erbium: YAG laser and control groups.

Background: The learning curve effect of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (D-CAIS) was observed among inexperienced novice surgeons. The learning curves can provide valuable information for novice surgeons and valid comparisons between new and conventional techniques. Recently, robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (R-CAIS) has shown promise as a novel dental implant surgical technique for both partially and edentulous patients. However, its learning curve remains unknown.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the learning curve of dental implant placement surgery with a task-autonomous robotic system among young dentists with different specialties.

Methods and materials: Four young dentists (mean age: 25.3 ± 1.5 years at the beginning of their first attempt) with equal representation of males and females and with different specialties participated in this study. None of the participants had prior experience in R-CAIS. Each operator placed eight implants over eight attempts using a semi-active task-autonomous robotic system. Among the eight implants, four were straight lateral incisor implants, and four were 30°-tilted premolar implants. The implants were placed in each dental quadrant of the maxillary and mandibular jaw modules. The operation time was recorded. Coronal, apical, and angular deviations between the planned and actual sites of implant placement were measured by merging preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. The data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA (α = 0.05).

Results: The mean time for implant placement was associated with the number of attempts (p < 0.01). The time taken for the second attempt was significantly shorter than that of the first attempt (33.26 vs. 30.47 min; p < 0.001) then it plateaued. Three-dimensional (3D) angular (p = 0.31), coronal deviation (p = 0.26), and apical deviation (p = 0.06) did not differ significantly among attempts. The mean values and standard deviations of 3D coronal deviation, 3D apical deviation, and 3D angular deviation were 0.71 ± 0.31 mm, 0.72 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.94 ± 0.58°, respectively. Neither the position of the jaw (p > 0.59) nor the tilt angle of the implant (straight or 30°-tilted, p > 0.85) was related to implant placement accuracy.

Conclusions: Dentists quickly learned the basic workflow of R-CAIS and thus facilitated the clinicians in the mastery of implant placement on edentulous jaw modules, leading to a comparable operating speed and high precision. Moreover, the accuracy of placement of straight and tilted implants in both the maxilla and mandible with R-CAIS was satisfactory.

Objectives: To assess the costs and efforts of maintenance therapy following implant treatment with fixed restoration over an observation period of 10 years.

Material and methods: This randomized controlled clinical trial included 64 patients who were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (AST or STM) and fixed restoration. Patients were included in a regular maintenance program and were examined at loading, 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 years. Outcome measures included technical and biological complications, time, efforts, and costs to resolve them.

Results: A total of 97 implants were placed in 64 patients (AST: 54, STM: 43). Patient recall rates at 5 and 10 years were 89% and 67%. In general, technical complications were resolved within one to two appointments (mean = 1.5), and biological complications required a mean of 1.3 appointments. The overall regular maintenance time for the period of 10 years amounted to 77 min per year. Technical complications occurred in 39.5% of the patients, with screw-loosening being the most common one (43.4% of all complications). The most time-consuming technical complication was abutment fracture (94 min ± 68), followed by screw fracture (84 min ± 38). The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis on the patient level was 30.2%, and it was 9.3% for peri-implantitis. The average annual maintenance costs amounted to 9% of the initial cost of the implant treatment over the period of 10 years.

Conclusions: Additional regular maintenance costs and costs due to the treatment of potential complications have to be taken into consideration when placing dental implants. The majority of technical complications could be resolved within one appointment, whereas the time needed to treat biological complications varied between one and three appointments for peri-implantitis.

Objectives: To compare patients' satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in edentulous patients treated by All-on-4 and All-on-6 implant-supported fixed prostheses rehabilitation over 3-7 years.

Methods: All patients (n = 125) were divided into short-term (3-5 years, n = 71) and long-term (5-7 years, n = 54) follow-up groups. Patients' satisfaction was examined in a cross-sectional survey. OHRQoL and psychological impact were evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Comparison of All-on-4 and All-on-6, including OHIP values, satisfaction scores, treatment duration and complications, were analyzed using the Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Potential influence of patient-related factors on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed via the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple regression analyses. Power calculation was conducted in R Studio.

Results: Both All-on-4 and All-on-6 follow-up groups showed high scores in total satisfaction and PROMs, including chewing comfort, aesthetics, cleanability, and stability, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Meanwhile, no significant differences were observed in the OHIP scores between two groups in both follow-up durations (p > 0.05). However, in patients with 3-5 years follow-up, All-on-4 group had significantly lower phonetic satisfaction scores than All-on-6 group (p < 0.05). Additionally, during both follow-up periods, All-on-4 patients exhibited notably superior psychological effect in contrast to All-on-6 patients (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Edentulous patients treated by four or six implant-supported fixed prostheses showed same high satisfaction in oral health-related quality of life in both 3-5 years and 5-7 years follow-ups.

Maxillary sinus floor elevation is usually performed in two different ways: the lateral approach involves the creation of a bony window on the maxillary sinus lateral wall, providing direct access to the sinus cavity for membrane elevation and subsequent graft placement, and the transcrestal approach is considered less invasive. The aim of this article is to describe, based on the literature, how to anticipate, avoid, and manage the intraoperative complications that can occur with both approaches. For both approaches, the most common complication is the sinus membrane perforation. For the lateral approach, an average frequency ranging from 15.7% to 23.1% is reported, but because of the better visibility, their management will be easier compared to the transcrestal approach. Mean perforation rate reported for the transcrestal approach is lower (3.1%-6.4%), but it should be noted that a significant number of perforations cannot be detected and managed given the blind nature of this technique. Anatomical parameters such as sinus width and buccal wall thickness may be a risk factor for one approach and not the other. As it is impossible to assess the resistance of the Schneiderian membrane, the transcrestal approach is more likely to lead to infectious complications in the event of perforation. Others, such as the risk of vascular damage, are encountered only with the lateral approach, which can be prevented easily by dissecting the alveolo-antral artery. For both approaches, prevention is essential and consists in analyzing the anatomy, mastering the surgical technique, and collaborating with the ENT to manage the essentially infectious consequences of intraoperative complications.

Objectives: This study evaluates the clinical performance of implants with hydrophilic surface and two different macrostructures: cylindrical with perforating triangular threads (CT) and cylindrical-tapered with the association of square and condensing and perforating triangular threads (TST).

Materials and methods: This was a multicenter split-mouth, simple-blinded, randomized, and controlled trial. Thirty patients with edentulous mandible received two CT and two TST implants. Primary stability was determined by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Implants were loaded with full fixed-arch prostheses within 24 h after insertion. Clinical parameters (visible plaque index, marginal bleeding index; bleeding on probing; probing depth; and clinical attachment level) and the RFA were assessed at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months after implant loading. Marginal bone level changes were measured by comparison of standardized radiographs taken on the day of implant placement and 6, 12, and 24 months thereafter.

Results: Twenty-eight patients completed the 2-year follow-up. The survival rates were 99.16% for CT implants and 100% for TST implants. One CT implant was lost until the 2 months follow-up. No significant differences were found between the two implant types for marginal bone level changes (CT 0.34 [0.24; 0.55 mm]; 0.33 [0.18; 0.55 mm]; 0.41 [0.12; 0.7 mm] vs TST 0.36 [0.14; 0.74 mm]; 0.33 [0.23; 0.63 mm]; 0.30 [0.20; 0.64 mm] at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively) and other clinical parameters.

Conclusion: The macrostructure of the implants had no influence on survival rate, primary and secondary stability, marginal bone level changes, and peri-implant clinical parameters outcomes. Both implants can be predictably used for immediate loading of full-arch mandibular prostheses.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of ultrasound-image-based computer-assisted implant planning and placement.

Materials and methods: Intraoral scans, cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT), and ultrasound (US) scans with a custom positioning device were acquired in nine patients. Prosthetic-driven surgical guides were planned and fabricated based on ultrasound images and intraoral scans. Implants were then placed. Postoperative implant position was obtained intra-surgically by intraoral scan. Aside from the ultrasound-based plan, conventional implant planning was performed by the same operator on a pre-surgical CBCT for comparison. Linear deviations between ultrasound and CBCT-planned implant positions were measured and compared with the intra-surgical implant position, and the position deviations between two consecutive plannings were performed on the same CBCT by the same operator. The linear deviation between the 3D scan surface of the edentulous region and the ultrasonographic soft tissue profile segmentation was also assessed with reverse-engineering software. Means, standard deviations, and root mean square differences (RMSD) were calculated for every variable.

Results: All the ultrasound-planned implants were successfully placed, and no complications were recorded. The mean deviations in angles, shoulders, and apexes were 5.27 ± 1.75° (RMSD: 5.53°), 0.92 ± 0.26 mm (RMSD: 0.95 mm), and 1.41 ± 0.61 mm (RMSD: 1.53 mm), respectively, between the US and CBCT-planned implants; 2.63 ± 0.43° (RMSD: 2.66°), 1.16 ± 0.30 mm (RMSD: 1.19 mm), and 1.26 ± 0.27 mm (RMSD: 1.28 mm) between the planned implant and intra-surgically recorded positions; and 2.90 ± 1.36° (RMSD: 3.18°), 0.65 ± 0.27 mm (RMSD: 0.70 mm), and 0.99 ± 0.37 mm (RMSD: 1.05 mm) between two consecutive CBCTs planning performed by the same operator. The mean deviation between the 3D surfaces of model scans and ultrasound-derived soft tissue profile in the edentulous area was 0.19 ± 0.08 mm.

Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided implant surgery represents a feasible non-ionizing alternative to conventional static guided implant surgical protocols for implant placement in sites with favorable characteristics.

Osseodensification is a novel approach that has significantly advanced the field of implant dentistry, particularly in the context of transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation. This technique involves the use of specially designed burs that compact and densify bone along the osteotomy walls, thereby enhancing implant primary stability and facilitating osseointegration in low-density bone. This article reviews the historical evolution of implant site preparation, and the biomechanical, histological, and clinical evidence of osseodensification with a special focus on its application in sinus floor augmentation. The integration of this technique into contemporary practice represents a paradigm shift, offering a minimally invasive and efficient solution for addressing the challenges of posterior maxilla, with improved patient-reported outcomes and low complication rate. Three different protocols for sinus lift and implant placement using osseodensification burs are proposed based on available literature, and risk factors for Schneiderian membrane perforation based on residual bone height are discussed, along with implant-related outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures. The potential for osseodensification to become a standard practice in sinus floor augmentation is emphasized, highlighting key aspects such as surgical protocol and patient selection.

Objectives: This study aimed to report the clinical and radiographic results of 2.8 mm two-piece narrow diameter implant (NDI) supporting fixed restorations.

Materials and methods: Clinical and radiographic data of 54 NDIs in 32 patients were retrospectively assessed after 2 to 11 (mean 8.17) years of follow-up. Clinical and radiographic measurements were taken. Survival rate, implant and prosthesis failure, pink aesthetic scores (PES), white aesthetic scores (WES), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complications were evaluated.

Results: An implant failed during the follow-up period, resulting in a cumulative survival rate of 98.15% at the implant level and 96.88% in the patient. The total mean values of PES and WES for 2.8 mm NDIs were 7.09 ± 1.15 (range: 3.33-9.00) and 7.42 ± 1.03 (range: 3.67-9.33). The prevalence of sites with positive BOP was 38.14 ± 29.77%. The mean PD value was 2.46 ± 0.62 mm. The average MBL was 1.15 ± 0.74 mm (range: 0.25-4.03 mm). No implant or abutment fracture was detected. A veneer chipping was present in one patient, and a loose crown appeared in another patient. Two implants (3.7%) and two patients (6.3%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis.

Conclusion: Within the limitation of the study, the results indicate that the use of two-piece 2.8 mm NDI for the fixed prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous regions with reduced interdental and/or buccal-lingual width is viable.

Introduction: Implant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available.

Purpose: To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Materials and methods: This randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.

Results: Regarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item "emotional well-being," the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).

Conclusion: Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.