Clinical implant dentistry and related research最新文献

Introduction: Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a surgical procedure intended to increase the volume of the bone vertically to accommodate dental implant placement. This intervention is frequently required for implant installation in the posterior maxilla, where the bone may be insufficient for securing implants of necessary length and stability. Sinus floor elevation can be completed either through a direct approach with a "window" through the lateral wall of the alveolar ridge or an indirect "transcrestal/transalveolar" sinus floor elevation (TSFE), which accesses the sinus floor through the crest of the edentulous ridge. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive scoping review of research conducted over the past 25 years on TSFE, specifically.

Methods: A literature search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this PRISMA-ScR-compliant scoping review was conducted. Only randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these studies were extracted. Primary outcome measures included radiographic bone levels and implant failure >5 years. Secondary outcome measures included implant stability at time of placement and complications. Interventions reported in the selected studies were grouped based on treatment modality, which were then compared with the control therapy (traditional osteotome technique) after a minimum of 12 months healing period.

Results: Our search yielded 633 records, and after deduplication, 574 of these were screened. Application of the eligibility criteria led to the inclusion of 37 articles in the final selection. Case selection for included studies enrolling subjects: Four different transcrestal sinus elevation treatment modalities were identified: (a) osteotome, (b) piezoelectric surgery, (c) osseodensification, and (d) hydraulic techniques. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, no superior approach for TSFE could be identified. Overall, all techniques demonstrated high implant survival rates.

Conclusion: Comprehensive understanding of the patient's medical history, available armamentarium, and post-operative complications/management strategies are all essential to the completion of a successful TSFE approach for implant placement in the posterior maxilla, regardless of the treatment modality used.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different collagen membran fixation protocols on the volume stability in horizontal ridge augmentation in the aesthetic area.

Methods: A total of 48 patients with 65 augmented sites were included in this study. Implants were placed in the aesthetic region, and simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) surgery was performed for horizontal ridge augmentation. Participants were divided into four groups, each comprising 12 patients, based on different absorbable collagen membrane fixation protocols. Group 1: without fixation; Group 2: fixation with absorbable sutures; Group 3: fixation with titanium pins; Group 4: fixation with titanium pins and absorbable sutures. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately after surgery and at 6 months post-surgery, respectively. The horizontal thickness of the augmented region was analyzed for volume stability at the implant shoulder (H0) and 1-5 mm apical to the implant shoulder (H1-H5). Changes in labial thickness during bone healing were calculated as absolute values (mm) and relative values (%).

Results: After 6 months of bone healing, horizontal thickness was significantly reduced at all levels (H0-H5) in all groups compared to immediate post-surgery results (p < 0.05). At H1-H5, horizontal bone loss in group 1 was significantly higher than in the other three groups (p < 0.05). Group 4 exhibited significantly less horizontal bone loss compared to group 2 at H0-H2 (p < 0.05) and group 4 compared to group 3 at H0-H1 (p < 0.05). No significant difference in horizontal bone loss between groups 2 and 3 was detected at H0-H5 (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Guided bone regeneration in the aesthetic area with additional membrane fixation demonstrated superior volume stability of the augmented region compared to cases without fixation. There was no significant difference in bone volume stability between membrane fixation with titanium pins and fixation with absorbable sutures. However, the combined use of pins and absorbable sutures yielded superior volume stability.

Introduction: In cases of atrophy in the maxillary posterior region, characterized by reduced vertical bone volume, implant placement becomes challenging. Augmentation procedures like sinus lifts are often needed to address insufficient bone volume. This study aims to explore if alveolar ridge preservation, using a bovine bone substitute and a porcine collagen membrane, significantly decreases the need for sinus lifts compared to natural wound healing after tooth extraction.

Materials and methods: In this comparative clinical study, 40 patients requiring a total of 53 extractions were assigned to one of the following groups: a test group with bovine bone substitute material (Straumann® XenoFlex) and a porcine collagen membrane (Jason® membrane), or a control group with spontaneous socket healing. After 6 months, digital volume tomography was performed for implant planning.

Results: For seven patients from the control group (n = 22 extracted sites) sinus lift augmentations were performed while only four sinus lift procedures were performed in the test group (n = 31 extracted sites), indicating a higher need for sinus augmentation procedures in the control group, however not statistically different on a p value of 0.05 (p = 0.168). In the control group, the mean value of the radiographically measured bone height (mesial and distal) was 11.13 ± 2.12 mm preoperatively before tooth extraction, while it was 11.3 ± 2.17 mm postoperatively after implant placement. In contrast, the mean value in the test group was 11.78 ± 3.09 mm preoperatively and 11.92 ± 2.79 mm postoperatively. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio 0.32; 95% CI: 0.08, 1.26; p = 0.951). The implant survival rate in the control group was 100%, compared to 96.77% in the test group.

Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, the use of bovine bone substitute and a porcine resorbable membrane after tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla seems to reduce the need for sinus augmentation in comparison to spontaneous healing although the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the Alveolar Ridge Preservation in the test group made external sinus floor elevation unnecessary compared to the control group. The change in radiographically measured bone height pre- and postoperatively showed no significant difference between the two groups.

Purpose: To evaluate the mid-term clinical and radiographic results of immediate fixed full-arch prosthesis supported by two anterior axial and two posterior trans-crestally placed tilted implants in patients with severely atrophic posterior maxilla.

Materials and methods: Patients with posterior maxillary ridge less than 4 mm high and 3 mm wide were rehabilitated with an immediate fixed provisional prosthesis supported by two anterior axially placed and two trans-crestal posterior tilted implants within 3 h after implant surgery. The final prosthesis, consisting of a CAD-CAM titanium framework and composite teeth was delivered 6 months later. Patients were scheduled for follow-up visits every 6 months to assess clinical and radiological parameters. Patients' satisfaction was assessed by a questionnaire up to 5 years.

Results: From April 2008 to May 2017, 56 implants (28 axial and 28 tilted) were inserted in 14 subjects (eight female and six male). The average bone loss for the anterior axial implants was 0.99 ± 0.19 mm at 1 year (n = 28 implants), 1.37 ± 0.31 mm at 5 years (n = 28), and 2.05 ± 0.32 mm at 10 years (n = 14). Only for three implants in two subjects the marginal bone loss was higher than 2 mm after 60 months. No implant was lost, and no prosthetic failure occurred after a mean follow-up of 125 months (range 79-186 months), leading to 100% implant and prosthesis survival rates. The upper 95% confidence limit of the failure rate was 23% and 6% at patient and implant level, respectively. High level of satisfaction was reported at 5-year follow-up.

Conclusion: Wider sample sizes will be required to determine whether the presented technique is a reliable treatment option for the immediate rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla.

Introduction: Bidirectional vertical ridge augmentation in the posterior maxilla is very challenging.

Purpose: To evaluate the regenerative potential of micrografts, derived from periosteum or bone tissue, added to an anorganic xenograft in vertical reconstruction of the posterior maxilla, by a prospective, controlled study.

Materials and methods: After clinical selection and the analysis of CBCT scans, 24 posterior maxillary sites, in 19 patients, were treated by using Barbell Technique®. Sites requiring both inlay and onlay reconstruction were enrolled in the study. In the Control Group (CG, n = 8), a xenograft was used in the inlay site and for the onlay site, a 1:1 mix of xenograft and an autograft was used. In Test Group 1 (TG1, n = 8), both inlay and onlay sites were grafted with the xenograft associated with the micrografts derived from periosteum. In Test Group 2 (TG2, n = 8), both inlay and onlay sites were grafted with the xenograft associated with the micrografts derived from bone. Six months after the procedures, CBCT scans were obtained, and bone biopsy samples were harvested during implant placement surgery. The bone specimens were analyzed histomorphometrically, by measuring the percentages of vital mineralized tissue (VMT), non vital mineralized tissue (NVMT) and non mineralized tissue (NMT). Immunohistochemically, the levels of VEGF were categorized by a score approach.

Results: Histomorphometric analysis revealed, for the inlay grafts, no significant difference among the groups for VMT, NVMT and NMT. However, for onlay grafts, CG achieved a higher amount of VMT in comparison with TG2, and the opposite occurred for NMT values. In this regard, no statistical difference was observed between CG and TG1. Concerning immunohistochemistry, the VEGF values for CG and TG1 were slightly higher than those obtained by TG2 for both inlay and onlay grafts, but without statistical significance. CBCT analysis showed a similar level of gain for all groups, for both inlay and onlay bone augmentation sites. Clinically, one implant (in CG) within a total of 50 implants installed, had early failure and was replaced after 3 months. All patients received implant supported prosthesis.

Conclusion: This study indicated that the clinical use of micrograft derived from periosteum may have some potential to increase bone formation in onlay reconstructions, unlike the micrograft derived from bone tissue.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess the surface micro-roughness and abutment adaptation of selective laser melting (SLM) implant abutments in comparison to cast and machined implant abutments.

Methods: Forty abutment specimens were divided equally into four groups according to the fabrication technique as follows (n = 10), Machined Ti alloy abutments (Control), Cast CoCr abutments, SLM-CoCr abutments, and SLM-Ti alloy abutments. Forty internal connection implants (Ø 4.0 ×10 mm, Superline™, Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea) were mounted in clear acrylic resin. Fabricated abutments were assessed for surface micro-roughness using a 3D optical noncontact surface microscope. Vertical and horizontal adaptation of the abutment with implant interface was assessed by using Bruker micro-CT. Data was assessed using analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc comparison tests for all the variables except vertical misfit was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test. Pearson correlation was used to assess dependence between independent variable (surface roughness) and dependent variables (Horizontal misfit and vertical misfit).

Results: SLM-Ti abutments showed significantly rougher surface (p < 0.05) among the study groups. While SLM-CoCr abutments were smoother than Cast abutments with mean Ra of 1.30 ± 0.11 and 1.58 ± 0.17 μm, respectively (p < 0.05). For abutment adaptation, SLM-Ti abutments showed the highest horizontal misfit among the groups (p < 0.05). While, SLM-CoCr abutments (29.24 ± 11.11 μm) showed comparable (p > 0.05) horizontal misfit results with Cast (26.08 ± 3.93 μm) and machined (26.45 ± 7.33 μm) abutments. Comparable (p > 0.05) vertical misfit values between Cast CoCr (487.01 ± 40.34 μm), SLM-CoCr (358.38 ± 114.93 μm) and SLM-Ti (299.85 ± 172.88 μm) abutments were observed. A positive correlation was found between the surface roughness of the mating surfaces and abutment adaptation.

Conclusion: SLM CoCr abutments exhibited low roughness and comparable abutment adaptation (vertically and horizontally) than cast (control) abutments. Therefore, SLM CoCr abutments should be clinically investigated as potential implant abutments for clinical use.

Objectives: This study investigated the accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for immediate implant placement.

Methods: Twenty cases with 20 implant sites were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria. The preparation of the implant bed and implant placement followed the standardized dental implant robotic surgery protocol. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were conducted to assess possible discrepancies between actual and planned implant positions.

Results: The r-CAIS technology for immediate implant placement exhibited a mean global coronal deviation of 0.71 ± 0.27 mm (95% CI: 0.58-0.83 mm), a mean global apical deviation of 0.69 ± 0.26 mm (95% CI: 0.56-0.81 mm), and an angular deviation of 1.27 ± 0.47° (95% CI: 1.05-1.49°). A substantial number of deviations were observed buccally at both coronal (90%) and apical (95%) levels, with a consistent tendency for buccal deviation.

Conclusions: The r-CAIS technology proved a promising approach for immediate implantation in the anterior region, with satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, an optimized surgical protocol for r-CAIS technology is required for particular implant sites like extraction sockets or bone defects.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of peri-implant dehiscence defects using a synthetic bone substitute (SBS) or a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) as a bone substitute.

Methods: Patients with expected dehiscence defects following implant placement were randomized to use either SBS or DBBM together with a bioabsorbable collagen membrane over dehiscenced implant surfaces aimed for GBR. The changes in the bone defect size were measured before the GBR procedure and 6 months after implant placement at the re-entry surgery. Secondary outcomes included peri-implant health outcomes, implant cumulative survival rates, bone level changes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) at prosthesis delivery and 1-year follow-up.

Results: Of the 49 included patients, 24 were treated with SBS and 25 with DBBM. In the SBS group, the defect height (DH) at implant insertion was 5.1 ± 2.6 mm and was reduced at re-entry to 1.3 ± 2.0 mm (74.5%). In the DBBM group, the respective changes in DH were 4.1 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 1.9 mm (63.4%). These differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.216). The complete defect resolution rate was also comparable in both groups without statistical difference (62.5% of patients (15/24) vs. 44% of patients (11/25)). Overall, the marginal bone levels remained stable during the 1-year follow-up in both groups.

Conclusion: The SBS is noninferior to DBBM for simultaneous GBR to implant placement at implant sites with buccal dehiscences in terms of defect resolution and evaluated secondary outcomes (KCT0008393 - this clinical trial was not registered before participant recruitment and randomization).

Objectives: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the early and late implant failure rates of one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE) and to identify the patient and implant-related risk factors associated with these failures.

Materials and methods: All patients treated with one-stage LSFE from January 2014 to December 2021 were evaluated for inclusion. A total of 618 patients with 936 implants met the inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic information about patient and implants was collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards frailty regression models were performed to identify risk factors for early and late implant failure.

Results: The cumulative implant survival rate was 95.62% (95% CI 93.90%-97.68%), with 16 early implant failures and 25 late implant failures. The Cox analysis indicated that ≤3 mm residual bone height (RBH) was associated with a higher early failure rate. For late implant failure, smoking habit, ≤3 mm RBH, and certain implant brand were independent risk factors. Narrow sinus ostium, long infundibulum, and flat thickening of Schneiderian membrane might be non-independent risk factors for late implant failure. No significance was found in other variables, including age, periodontitis history, implant characteristics (position, diameter, length, protrusion length, marginal bone loss), surgeon experience, healing time, opposing dentition, and prosthesis.

Conclusions: One-stage LSFE is a predictable treatment for patients with atrophic maxilla. ≤3 mm RBH increased the risk of early implant failure, while smoking habit, ≤3 mm RBH, and certain implant brand were independent risk factors for late implant failure.

Background: The cortical shell technique is frequently associated with technical drawbacks, such as the lack of anatomical guidance during shell harvest and graft. This study aims to assess the horizontal bone gain and accuracy of a digitalized protocol that incorporates two interlocking patient-specific stackable guides (PSSGs) to control the shell harvest, positioning, and fixation.

Patients and methods: Twenty patients with deficient anterior mandibles were randomly allocated; 10 patients received freehand symphyseal shell harvest and fixation (the control group), whereas the other 10 received fully guided harvest and graft (study group) using (PSSGs), the first aided an accurate shell harvest, whereas the second conveyed shell fixation. The interposition gap among both groups was loaded with an equal mix of xenogeneic and autogenous particulates. The mean radiographic bone gain among both groups was calibrated 6 months postoperatively, and the accuracy of the digital plan was assessed by superimposing and comparing the virtually planned horizontal bone dimensions with the immediate postoperative actual bone dimensions.

Results: The mean 6-month postoperative horizontal bone gain value of the study group was recorded as (4.97 ± 0.73) mm versus (4.45 ± 0.61) mm for the control group, with a statistically insignificant mean gain difference of (0.52) mm, (p = 0.101). The mean virtual preplanned horizontal bone gain was recorded (5.4 ± 0.6) versus (5.4 ± 0.6) for the immediate postoperative actual bone gain, which was also statistically insignificant (p = 0.9).

Conclusion: The (PSSGs) provided a precise method for graft harvest, position, and fixation, resulting in satisfactory alveolar ridge dimensions with intimate accuracy.