Immediate Early and Delayed Implants: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study of 131 Transmucosal Flapless Implants Placed in Sites With Different Pre-extractive Endodontic Infections

Retreatment or replacement of previous endodontically treated premolars with recurrent apical periodontitis? An 8-year historical cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The study evaluated previously-endodontically-treated premolars affected by periapical lesions and/or secondary caries requiring a multidisciplinary decision between (non-surgical) retreatment or extraction and implant replacement over an 8-year minimum follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The decision-making was performed among a pool of patients attending a University Dental School. All patients presented at least one failing previously endodontically treated premolar. Recorded parameters were: structural conditions (residual coronal-structure, caries), periodontal and endodontic status (CEJ-MBL, initial-PAI, post-presence). Two experienced operators made the decision-making and classified teeth as retreatable and restorable (Endo-group) or suitable for extraction and implant replacement (Implant-group). Logistic regression and Cox-proportional-hazard analyses with clustered-standard-errors compared baseline-characteristics and treatment-outcomes. Odds-ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence-intervals (CIs) were reported for baseline-characteristics. Hazard-ratios (HRs) expressed the association of treatment-groups with time-to-event.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (n = 124 premolars) were enrolled (49 M;47 F; mean-age 53.1 ± 11.6 years). The decision-making splitted 54.8% treatments to Endo-group (n = 68) and 45.2% to Implant-group (n = 56). The 8-year survival were 85.1% for Endo-group and 98.2% for Implant-group. The 8-year success were 80.5% and 93.9%. The HR from Cox regression favored Implant-group (HR = 0.12, P = 0.049). The Endo-group showed the highest number of critical complications (15%) due to fractures, despite the healing of lesions. Implant-group had a higher percentage of minor prosthetic complications (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endo-group demonstrated higher percentage of critical complications compared to Implant-group during the follow-up. Root fractures were accounted as main responsible, while periapical disease did not affect healing, survival and clinical longevity.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Insufficient crown structure was the major parameter associated with root fracture. In these cases, implant replacement strategy represented an adequate therapy justified by the higher success compared to root canal retreatment.

Immediate implant placement in compromised sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Immediate implant placement provides a popular therapeutic option. However, compromised sockets may jeopardize the treatment outcome.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the treatment outcome in terms of the implant survival rate and success parameters of immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science up to January 2021. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main success parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis (risk ratio and mean difference).

RESULTS

In total, 43 studies with analysis of 4825 sockets were included. Compared with the noncompromised sockets, the compromised group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio=0.992; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.979 to 1.005; P=.246). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level at ≤12 months (mean difference [MD]=0.033; 95% CI=-0.012 to 0.078; P=.154) or esthetic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement in compromised sites does not appear to decrease the survival and success rates. However, randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes should be conducted to draw a definite conclusion about the efficacy and safety of this treatment protocol in compromised sockets.

Immediate Implant and Customized Healing Abutment for a Periodontally Compromised Socket: 1-Year Follow-Up Retrospective Evaluation

Immediate dental implant placement with or without immediate loading is reported in daily dentistry and implantology, but these procedures are not common in the case of periradicular and periapical lesions around the tooth needed to be replaced. In the following retrospective evaluation, 10 cases with a 1-year follow-up were selected to propose the technique of an immediate provisional non-loading prosthesis being delivered on the same day of the post-extraction implant placement in multiradicular teeth affected by chronic periradicular and periapical lesions. Post-extractive sockets underwent immediate dental implant placement by filling the empty space with sterile, re-absorbable gelatin sponges. The widths of the alveolar ridge were measured on three-dimensional radiographs before and after the operation, 4 and 12 months later. Non-parametric statistics were performed to compare the outcomes over time with a level of significance of 0.05. Comparing the preoperative cross-sectional images of cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scans to the postoperative ones, it was noted that changes in the crestal ridge width, ΔCW, (compared to baseline) were negligible and not clinically appreciable. However, while ΔCW at 4 months appeared to be negative (-0.17 ± 045 mm), crestal width at 12 months was at the same level as the baseline (ΔCW = 0.02 ± 0.48 mm), with a significant difference between 4 and 12 months (p-value = 0.0494). Immediate implant placement with an immediate non-loading provisional customized healing abutment of polyether-ether-ketone placed into the post-extractive sockets with asymptomatic and large chronic periapical and periradicular lesions could represent a further treatment strategy for patients' rehabilitation and soft tissue preservation to replace a hopeless tooth.

Full arch immediate occlusal loading using site specific implants: A clinical series of 10 patients (13 arches)

PURPOSE

Osseointegration of dental endosseous implants has proven to be effective, predictable, and clinically successful. Unloaded healing protocols were originally used in treating edentulous patients. Full arch immediate occlusal loading protocols have been shown to be as effective as unloaded healing protocols. This paper reports on the results, benefits, and limitations of one specific immediate loading protocol using site specific implants for fresh extraction and healed extraction sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients [{13 arches} (age range: 64-81 years; average: 70.1) (4 males/6 females) were treated by the first 2 authors in private practice settings. Hopeless teeth were scheduled for extraction with immediate implant placement and immediate loading with insertion of full arch, screw-retained, acrylic resin interim prostheses within 24 hours. Implants were also placed into healed edentulous ridges. Insertion torque values for each implant were recorded. Interim prostheses were removed after at least 3 months of healing. Implants were reverse torque tested (35 Ncm) and evaluated for macroscopic mobility. Definitive full arch prostheses were made. Patients were followed for 21 to 48 months postimplant surgery. Panoramic radiographs were taken immediately postimplant placement and 1 year postoperative.

RESULTS

Thirteen arches were treated; 11 ultrawide diameter implants were placed into molar sockets, 26 inverted body-shift implants were placed into anterior sockets; 25 standard diameter, tapered implants were placed into edentulous sites; 2 zygomatic implants were placed in one patient. The total number of implants placed was 64 (4 preexisting implants were also used and not included in this study). The minimum implant insertion torque value was 20 Ncm. After 12 to 18 months of function (average 14 months), the implant and prosthetic survival rates were 100%. Eight patients were restored with definitive zirconia or acrylic resin hybrid fixed prostheses. Two patients were restored with bar titanium frameworks and removable overdenture prostheses. No prosthetic complications were reported for the definitive prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this clinical series with site specific implants and immediate full arch occlusal loading in treating edentulous patients resulted in 100% clinical implant and prosthetic survival rates. According to this study, this protocol can be used with high levels of anticipated success.

Micro-Nano Surface Characterization and Bioactivity of a Calcium Phosphate-Incorporated Titanium Implant Surface

The surface topography of dental implants and micro-nano surface characterization have gained particular interest for the improvement of the osseointegration phases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface micro-nanomorphology and bioactivity (apatite forming ability) of Ossean^® surface, a resorbable blast medium (RBM) blasted surface further processed through the incorporation of a low amount of calcium phosphate. The implants were analyzed using environmental scanning electronic microscopy (ESEM), connected to Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), field emission gun SEM-EDX (SEM-FEG) micro-Raman spectroscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) before and after immersion in weekly refreshed Hank’s balanced salt solution (HBSS) for 28 days. The analysis of the samples before immersion showed a moderately rough surface, with micropits and microgrooves distributed on all of the surface; EDX microanalysis revealed the constitutional elements of the implant surface, namely titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al) and vanadium (V). Limited traces of calcium (Ca) and phosphorous (P) were detected, attributable to the incorporated calcium phosphate. No traces of calcium phosphate phases were detected by micro-Raman spectroscopy. ESEM analysis of the implant aged in HBSS for 28 days revealed a significantly different surface, compared to the implant before immersion. At original magnifications <2000×, a homogeneous mineral layer was present on all the surface, covering all the pits and microgrooves. At original magnifications ≥10,000×, the mineral layer revealed the presence of small microspherulites. The structure of these spherulites (approx. 2 µm diameter) was observed in nanoimmersion mode revealing a regular shape with a hairy-like contour. Micro-Raman analysis showed the presence of B-type carbonated apatite on the implant surface, which was further confirmed by XPS analysis. This implant showed a micro-nano-textured surface supporting the formation of a biocompatible apatite when immersed in HBSS. These properties may likely favor bone anchorage and healing by stimulation of mineralizing cells.

Maryland-bridge application as a suitable technique to preserve marginal bone level of not-submerged supracrestal implants

BACKGROUND

One to 6 months after implant placement is a critical time/period responsible for crestal bone loss that may affect implant osseointegration. The study aims to explore the effectiveness of provisional adhesive Maryland-bridge (AMB) applied to prevent marginal bone level (MBL) around implants placed in edentulous crestal bone in posterior area during osseointegration period.

METHODS

Healthy, non-smoker patients (N.=18) were included in the study. Titanium implants were placed nonsubmerged (i.e. tissue-level) with cover screws at gingival level in edentulous crestal bone with flapless technique. Nine patients randomly received an AMB, while 9 patients did not receive any AMB. Each AMB remained in place for 3 months and removed before impression. After 3 months abutments were applied, and provisional resin crowns cemented and definitive metal-ceramic crowns were cemented after 2-3 months. Periapical Rx were taken using paralleling technique before and after implant insertion, at 1, 3 months (pre-loading time) and after 6 months (post-loading time). MBL was evaluated in double-blind on scanned periapical radiographs and assessed at mesial and distal side of implants (M-MBL and D-MBL). Area of bone loss on mesial and distal side of implants (Area-M and Area-D) and Cervical Enamel Junction migration of mesial and distal adjacent teeth were also measured (CEJ-M and CEJ-D). Linear regression models were fitted to evaluate the existence of any significant difference.

RESULTS

Two drop-out was observed in AMB group. A total of 16 patients completed the study. After 6 months, all implants were safe and free from complications. AMB group showed the most stable MBL at 1-6 months, statistically different from non-AMB and resulted in a reduced crestal bone loss from baseline compared to Non AMB group. Area-M and Area-D were not statistically different between the groups. CEJ-M and CEJ-D were stable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Adhesive Maryland Bridge to protect non-submerged post-extractive implants is a safe procedure that prevents bone loss around implants and preserve the 3D architecture of crestal bone ridge.

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2,589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p = 0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p = 0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p = 0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [-0.47; 1.33], p = 0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink aesthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46; 0.39], p = 0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant placement demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated.