Bruxism and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Material and abutment selection for CAD/CAM implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in partially edentulous patients - A narrative review

Restorative material selection has become increasingly challenging due to the speed of new developments in the field of dental material science. The present narrative review gives an overview of the current indications for implant abutments and restoration materials for provisional and definitive implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in partially edentulous patients. For single implant restorations, titanium base abutments for crowns are suggested as an alternative to the conventional stock- and customized abutments made out of metal or zirconia. They combine the mechanical stability of a metallic connection with the esthetic potential of ceramics. For multiple-unit restorations, conical titanium bases especially designed for bridges are recommended, to compensate for deviating implant insertion axes and angulations. Even though titanium base abutments with different geometries and heights are available, certain clinical scenarios still benefit from customized titanium abutments. Indications for the definitive material in fixed implant restorations depend on the region of tooth replacement. In the posterior (not esthetically critical) zone, ceramics such as zirconia (3-5-Ymol%) and lithium-disilicate are recommended to be used in a monolithic fashion. In the anterior sector, ceramic restorations may be buccally micro-veneered for an optimal esthetic appearance. Lithium-disilicate is only recommended for single-crowns, while zirconia (3-5-Ymol%) is also recommended for multiple-unit and cantilever restorations. Attention must be given to the specific mechanical properties of different types of zirconia, as some feature reduced mechanical strengths and are therefore not indicated for all regions and restoration span lengths. Metal-ceramics remain an option, especially for cantilever restorations.

Clinical Outcomes of Maxillary Sinus Floor Perforation by Dental Implants and Sinus Membrane Perforation during Sinus Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the clinical outcomes after the perforation of the maxillary sinus by dental implants, or after maxillary sinus membrane perforation during sinus lift procedure. Twenty-nine publications were included. Failure rates of implants in cases where perforation of sinus floor had happened (11 studies) was generally low, and only one case of transient sinusitis was reported. The estimated failure rate of these implants was 2.1% (SE 1.0%, p = 0.035). There were 1817 implants (73 failures) placed in augmented sinuses in which the sinus membrane was perforated and 5043 implants (274 failures) placed in sinuses with no perforated membrane, from 18 studies. The odds of implant failure difference between the groups were not significant (OR 1.347, p = 0.197). log OR of implant failure between perforated and non-perforated membrane groups did not significantly change with the follow-up time (-0.004/month; p = 0.500). In conclusion, implant failure rate is generally low either for implants penetrating in the floor of the maxillary sinus or implants placed in augmented sinuses in which the sinus membrane was perforated. The prevalence of postoperative infection/sinusitis is low, and it may depend either on the dimensions of the perforation or on the anatomical predisposition.

Clinical outcomes of zirconia implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical outcomes of zirconia dental implants based on an updated systematic literature review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in three databases, last updated in June 2023, supplemented by hand searching. The eligibility criteria were clinical studies reporting patients rehabilitated with zirconia implants. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) of implants was calculated. A meta-analysis for marginal bone loss (MBL) under different follow-up times and a meta-regression assessing the relationship between mean MBL and follow-up were done.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included (4017 implants, 2083 patients). Seven studies had follow-up longer than 60 months. 172 implants failed, after a mean of 12.0 ± 16.1 months (min-max 0.3-86.0), of which 47 early failures, and 26 due to implant fracture, the majority in narrow-diameter implants. The 10-year CSR was 95.1%. Implants with coronal part prepared by drills presented statistically significant lower survival than non-prepared implants (p < 0.001). Two-piece implants presented lower survival than one-piece implants (p = 0.017). Implants discontinued from the market presented lower survival than the commercially available ones (p < 0.001). The difference in survival was not significant between implants in maxilla and mandible (p = 0.637). The mean MBL fluctuated between 0.632 and 2.060 mm over long periods of observation (up until 132 months). There was an estimated MBL increase of 0.005 mm per additional month of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Zirconia implants present high 10-year CSR and short-term low MBL. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022342055).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The clinical outcomes observed for zirconia dental implants are very promising, although these have not yet been extensively studied as titanium alloy implants.

Difference in marginal bone loss around implants between short implant-supported partial fixed prostheses with and without cantilever: a retrospective clinical study

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of cantilever prosthetic arm on the marginal bone loss (MBL) over time around dental implants supporting short fixed partial dentures (FPDs), in a record-based retrospective study.

METHODS

All cases of 3-unit implant-supported FPDs, supported by 2-3 implants, from the database of cases treated at one specialist clinic were considered for inclusion. Only implants with a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up were considered. Univariate linear regression models were used to compare MBL over time between 12 clinical covariates, after which a linear mixed-effects model was built.

RESULTS

One-hundred-thirty-nine patients (64 men, 75 women) with 164 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (333 implants supporting non-cantilevered FPDs, 94 supporting cantilevered FPDs) were included in the study. The patients were followed up clinically and radiographically for a mean of 154.1 ± 78.0 (min-max, 37.3-364.6) and 132.9 ± 77.3 months (min-max, 36.8-329.9), respectively. The total number of marginal bone level double measurements (mesial and distal sides of each implant) was 2909. FPDs with cantilever presented an estimated greater MBL over time compared to FPDs without cantilever. Bruxism, sex (women), implant (modified) surface, and (poor) bone quality were also associated with higher MBL over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a cantilever extension is suggested to negatively affect the bone marginal level over time around implants supporting 3-unit FPDs. Due to the small difference of the estimated MBL over long periods of follow-up between the groups, it is a matter of debate if the observed negative effect may be of clinical significance.

Risk Factors Associated with Failure and Technical Complications of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Implant-supported single crowns have become a routine approach for the replacement of missing single teeth, being considered as one of the most common ways of rehabilitation when adjacent teeth are healthy. The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the risk factors possibly associated with failure and technical complications of implant-supported single crowns and their supporting implants. Materials and Methods: Patients treated at one faculty (2009-2019) were considered for inclusion. Complications investigated included ceramic fracture/chipping, crown loss of retention/mobility, crown failure/fracture, loosening/loss/fracture of prosthetic screw, and implant failure/fracture. Any condition/situation that led to the removal/replacement of crowns (implant failure not included) was considered prosthesis failure. Univariate/multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the associations between clinical covariates and failure. Results: 278 patients (358 crowns) were included. Mean ± SD follow-up was 56.5 ± 29.7 months. Seven implants (after a mean of 76.5 ± 43.7 months) and twenty crowns (21.3 ± 23.5 months) failed. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) for crowns was 93.5% after 5, remaining at 92.2% between 6 and 11 years. The most common reasons for crown failure were porcelain large fracture (n = 6), crown repeatedly loose (n = 6), and porcelain chipping (n = 5). Men and probable bruxism were identified in the Cox regression model as being associated with crown failure. The most common observed technical complications were mobility of the crown and chipping of the ceramic material, with the latter being observed even in crowns manufactured of monolithic zirconia. Cases with at least one technical complication (not considering loss of screw hole sealing) were more common among probable bruxers than in non-bruxers (p = 0.002). Cases of ceramic chipping were more common among bruxers than in non-bruxers (p = 0.014, log-rank test). Conclusions: Probable bruxism and patient's sex (men) were factors associated with a higher risk of failure of implant-supported single crowns.