Survival and Success Rates of Different Shoulder Designs: A Systematic Review of the Literature

In vivo bioengineered tooth formation using decellularized tooth bud extracellular matrix scaffolds

The use of dental implants to replace lost or damaged teeth has become increasingly widespread due to their reported high survival and success rates. In reality, the long-term survival of dental implants remains a health concern, based on their short-term predicted survival of ~15 years, significant potential for jawbone resorption, and risk of peri-implantitis. The ability to create functional bioengineered teeth, composed of living tissues with properties similar to those of natural teeth, would be a significant improvement over currently used synthetic titanium implants. To address this possibility, our research has focused on creating biological tooth substitutes. The study presented here validates a potentially clinically relevant bioengineered tooth replacement therapy for eventual use in humans. We created bioengineered tooth buds by seeding decellularized tooth bud (dTB) extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffolds with human dental pulp cells, porcine tooth bud-derived dental epithelial cells, and human umbilical vein endothelial cells. The resulting bioengineered tooth bud constructs were implanted in the mandibles of adult Yucatan minipigs and grown for 2 or 4 months. We observed the formation of tooth-like tissues, including tooth-supporting periodontal ligament tissues, in cell-seeded dTB ECM constructs. This preclinical translational study validates this approach as a potential clinically relevant alternative to currently used dental implants.

Is CONSORT a Risk of Bias Tool for Experimental Studies: A Big Misunderstanding

Introduction

In order to avoid bias in systematic reviews (SRs), the accuracy in selection of risk of bias (RoB) assessment tools is essential to obtain highest level of evidence for evidence-based decision making in health care. We aimed to review how 'CONSORT statement', as a reporting quality of randomized controlled trials, has been misused in recent SRs as a ROB tool.

Methods

A mini-review was performed in international databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature from 2000 to 2021 and written in English. The following keywords: risk of bias, "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials", CONSORT, "systematic review" were used. Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained.

Results

A total of 11 SRs were identified that misused CONSORT as a ROB tool, four of which were used only CONSORT as ROB tool. Different authentic magazines from various countries were recognized.

Conclusion

The CONSORT statement aims to increase clarity and consistency of transparency of reporting in randomized controlled trials. It is quite essential to draw the attention of SR researchers, journal editors/reviewers as well as the reading audience to the fact that CONSORT statement CONSORT statement is not a ROB tool.

Minimally Invasive Treatment of Lateral Incisors with Guided One-Piece or Two-Piece Titanium-Made Narrow Diameter Implants: A Retrospective Comparative Study with Up to Two Years Follow-Up

Restoring teeth with dental implants has become the gold standard in recent years, especially in the esthetic zone. However, limited amount of available bone as well as limited interdental space in the anterior zone may create problems for implant treatment. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) may be a treatment option to resolve the above-mentioned limitations and providing minimally invasive implant therapy without additional regenerative procedures. In this retrospective study, a comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes between one-piece and two-piece titanium-made NDIs was done with the follow-up of two years after loading. Twenty-three NDI cases were analyzed, 11 in the one-piece implant group (group one) and 12 in the two-piece implant group (group two). The outcomes were implant and prosthetic failures, any complications occurred, peri-implant bone level changes, and as well as the Pink Esthetic score. No implant or prosthetic failures, as well as, no complications were reported at the two-year follow-up examination. At the same time the marginal bone loss was 0.23 ± 0.11 in the group one and 0.18 ± 0.12 in the group two. Difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3339). The Pink Esthetic Score, recorded two years after definitive loading, was 12.6 ± 0.97 in the group one and 12.2 ± 0.92 in the group two, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.3554). With the limitations of the present study, including the small sample size and short follow-up, it is possible to conclude that either one and two-piece NDI can be successfully used to restore lateral incisors with comparable results within the two years of follow-up.

Anterior Incisal Onlay—A Minimally Invasive Non-Surgical Approach to Correct an Esthetic Complication of an Implant Supported Crown in the Anterior Zone

The growing demand for re-treatment of existing implant supported restorations in the anterior area due to esthetic complications poses a clinical challenge. One-piece implant supported restoration adds to the clinical complexity. Single implant crown restorations appear short as a result of expected cranio-facial changes. In the presented clinical case, a minimally invasive approach is offered as a solution for such an esthetic difficulty. The clinical old crown was prepared to receive an anterior incisal onlay (AIO) made from lithium disilicate and felspathic porcelain. The manufactured addition was adhesively cemented, presenting a simple prosthetic solution for an esthetic complaint, with no need for surgical procedure, while not challenging the one-piece implant body. As the variety of materials and methods for predictable adhesion increases, non-surgical and non-invasive treatment options will receive high priority. When correctly diagnosed and meticulously performed, the presented solution will meet the patient expectations and provide a satisfying result.

Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

Background: to assess the radiological marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissue-level dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors including only English articles. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis counting a total of 1161 patients (mean age 54.4 years) and 2933 implants, 1427 inserted at Tissue-level (TL) and 1506 inserted at Bone-level (BL). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). Only one study reported statistically less marginal bone loss in TL-implants (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the most part of the studies, differences between implant types in marginal bone loss were not statistically significant after a variable period of follow-up ranged between 1 and 5 years.

A Non-Interventional Study Documenting Use and Success of Tissue Level Implants

Numerous randomised controlled multicentric studies have investigated various responses to different treatment modalities with dental implants. These studies do not always show the results of daily practice as they are performed under controlled and strict clinical conditions. This multicentric, non-interventionist trial aimed to document the behaviour of implants when used in daily dental practice, without inclusion or exclusion criteria. One hundred and ninety-six screw-shaped, tissue-level implants were placed, and each clinician decided which implant, surgical loading and prosthetic protocol to use. At surgery, data related to the implants were recorded. Additionally, the crestal bone level changes were evaluated for up to two years of follow-up. Two implants were lost before they were loaded. The success rate was 98.31%, and the survival rate was 98.79%. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) at surgery was 68.61 ± 10.35 and at 2 years was 74.39 ± 9.64. The crestal–shoulder distances were 1.25 ± 1.09 mm and 1.68 ± 1.07 mm in the mesial and distal aspects on the day of surgery, respectively, and 2.04 ± 0.91 and 2.16 ± 0.99 mm at 2 years, respectively. At 2 years, 69.3% of the patients were highly satisfied. The use of implants under standard conditions seemed to have success rates similar to their placement in controlled studies.

A 4 Year Human, Randomized, Radiographic Study of Scalloped versus Non-Scalloped Cemented Implants

Marginal bone loss (MBL) is a key factor in long-term implant success rate. Among the different factors that influence MBL, it is the different implant shoulder designs, such as scalloped or non-scalloped, which have been widely studied on screw retained but not on cemented retained implants. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the MBL around scalloped and non-scalloped cemented retained dental implants after 4 years of loading, in humans. A total of 15 patients were enrolled in the present study. A radiographic and clinical examination was performed after implant placement (T0) and after 4 years from it (T1). The results demonstrated a differential MBL (T1-T0) of 2.436 ± 1.103 mm and 1.923 ± 1.021 mm, respectively for test (scalloped) and control (non-scalloped) groups with a statistically significant difference between them. On the other hand, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of prosthetic complication and abutment decementation, whilst ceramic crowns chipping was shown in both groups. In conclusion, the use of a scalloped platform did not provide better results on the maintenance of MBL after 4 years follow-up. In this study, this probably was determined by multiple factors, among which was the subcrestal insertion of scalloped implants.

Patient-centered rehabilitation of single, partial, and complete edentulism with cemented- or screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis: The First Osstem Advanced Dental Implant Research and Education Center Consensus Conference 2017

The aim of this consensus conference was to provide clinical guidelines, based on the available evidence and on the author's daily practice and experience, for general dentistry and dental practitioners to allow them to delivery long-term successful restorations. Three groups of expert clinicians and dental technicians were invited to evaluate all of the scientific literature from 1967 up to March 2017 to identify relevant studies on assigned topics and to prepare in advance narrative/systematic review, written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to fulfill the consensus statement criteria. The three topics assigned to the three groups were abutment/framework materials and customization (metal vs. metal-free restorations), abutment/framework protocols and designs, and abutment/framework retentions (cemented- vs. screw-retained implant-supported prostheses). All the expert clinicians presented their results, and the lectures were followed by discussions. No significant differences in clinical parameters (marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, and pocket probing depth) between screw- or cemented-retained were found for single and multiple implant-supported restorations. There is moderate evidence that nonoriginal abutments provide worse mechanical behavior than originals and high evidence that different implant neck designs do not offer any clinical or radiographic advantage. All the participants agreed that it is desirable to connect and remove abutments as few times as possible. There is medium evidence that an adequate platform switching tends to enhance tissue volume and stability in the medium- and long-term follow-up. No statistically significant differences exist between metal and zirconia as a framework material. The authors discussed and all agreed that retrievability and patient's expectation (function and esthetics) should guide the choice of the most adequate technique, component, and material.