Splinted and Unsplinted Short Implants in Mandibles: A Retrospective Evaluation With 5 to 16 Years of Follow-Up

Evaluation of the Peri-Implant Tissues of Patients with Severe Bone Atrophy Treated with a New Short and Extra-Short Implant System-A Pilot Study

This study aimed to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes, including implant survival, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction, in individuals with severe bone atrophy treated using a newly developed system of short and extra-short implants. A total of 44 implants (37 short and 7 extra-short) were placed with immediate loading in 11 patients. The patients were followed up at between 6 and 24 months. Bone changes, keratinized mucosa, bleeding on probing, probing depth, crown-to-implant ratio, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. An implant survival and success rate of 100% was observed. The peri-implant bone condition showed no significant associations between marginal bone loss (MBL) and gingival recession. In extra-short implants, the crown-to-implant ratio did not affect MBL in the evaluated times. However, short implants showed a statistically significant inverse correlation between mesial measurement and crown-to-implant ratio (p = 0.006) and between distal measurement and crown-to-implant ratio (p = 0.004) over six months. Plaque was present in the mesiobuccal regions in 38.64% of the implants, with extra-short implants having the highest relative frequency (71.4%). Bleeding was observed in 18.9% of the short implants in the mesiolingual region and 14.3% of the extra-short implants. There was a statistically significant association between bleeding on probing in the mesiobuccal region and the type of implant (p = 0.026). The analysis of probing depth showed no difference between the types of implants. Within the limits of this study, short and extra-short implants presented similar clinical and radiographic behavior of soft and hard tissues in the evaluated times.

Single geometry abutment for narrow and extra-narrow implant systems: Survival and failure modes

The use of identical prosthetic components for all implant diameters could reduce the production costs by companies and the complexity of component selection for the clinician and his team. However, it would imply in reduction of thickness of the cervical walls of tapered internal connection implants, which could compromise the reliability of narrow and extra-narrow implants. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the probability of survival and failure modes of extra-narrow implant systems with the same internal diameter as standard-diameter implants using the same prosthetic components. It was used eigth different implant system configurations, including narrow (Ø 3.3 mm) (N) extra-narrow (Ø 2.9 mm) (EN) and extra-narrow-scalloped (Ø 2.9 mm) (ENS) implants, both with cementable abutments (Ce) or titanium bases (Tib) and one-piece implants (Ø 2.5 mm and Ø 3.0 mm) (OP) (Medens, Itu, SP, Brazil), comprising the following groups: OP 3.0; OP 2.5; N Ce; N Tib; EN Ce, EN Tib, ENS-Ce and ENS-Tib. The implants were embedded using polymethylmethacrylate acrylic resin in a 15 mm matrix. Standardized maxillary central incisor crowns were virtually designed and milled to fit on the different studied abutments and cemented using a dual self-adhesive resin cement. The specimens were submitted to SSALT (Step Stress Accelerated Life Testing) at 15 Hz in water until failure or suspension of the test, until a maximum load of 500 N. Fractographic analysis of the failed specimens were realized in scanning electron microscopy. All implant systems demonstrated high probability of survival (90-100%) for missions at 50 and 100 N and values of characteristic strength superior to 139 N. Failure modes were restricted to the abutment in all the implant configurations tested. Therefore, the use extra-narrow implants with standardized prosthetic components for different implant diameters is a viable option for the replacement of anterior teeth.

A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To compare marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of implant-supported splinted and non-splinted restorations (NSR).

Settings and Design

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). The PROSPERO registry, which keeps track of prospective systematic reviews, also received this paper (CRD42021229477).

Material and Methods

An electronic search was done in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar searches were carried out. The search was limited to articles published in English and covered the period from January 2010 to August 2020.

Statistical Analysis Used

To conduct the meta analysis, researchers employed methodologies such as continuous measurement and odds ratios.

Results

For both qualitative and quantitative analysis, 19 scientific studies were chosen. 3682 implants were placed in 2099 patients with a mean age of 59 years (splinted, 2529; non-splinted, 1153); the mean age was not provided in 5 trials. For splinted restorations, there were statistically significant differences in MBL, indicating the former has less MBL than for NSR. Splinted restorations had much greater survival rates than NSR, according to a qualitative study. Rest prosthesis complications with or without splinting were essentially the same.

Conclusions

Splinted implant restorations lost less bone than non-splinted implant restorations, according to this meta analysis. This was particularly true for posterior restorations. Lower implant failure was associated with splinted restorations. Restorations with and without splinting had the same level of prosthetic problems.

Clinical performance of posterior monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with angulated screw channels: A 3-year prospective cohort study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The choice of retention type of an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) becomes critical when the dental implant is not placed in a prosthetically ideal location. In recent years, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology has enabled the correction of the location of screw access hole depending on the clinical needs of the patient. However, how FPDs with angulated screw channels (ASCs) perform clinically is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the mechanical complications and crestal bone loss (CBL) when posterior monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs with an ASC are used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Participants (N=37) with a missing single posterior tooth or multiple teeth, sufficient bone height, and an implant site without infection were included. Each participant received parallel-walled implants (Nobel Parallel CC) of 7-, 8.5-, or 10-mm length by using a 1-stage approach. After 4 months of healing, a conventional impression was made, and a digital workflow was followed. Monolithic zirconia restorations (Katana ML) were milled, stained, and mechanically attached to a titanium base (NobelProcera ASC abutment). CBL was measured from radiographs at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after the placement of the prosthesis. Implant and prosthetic characteristics including implant diameter, implant length, screw channel angle (angle≤15 degrees versus angle>16 degrees), prosthetic type (single crown versus multiple-unit FDP), and antagonist dentition (natural versus prosthesis) were also recorded. A generalized linear mixed model with a log link was estimated to assess the independent predictors of CBL among the angles of ASC-retained definitive restorations and the clinically relevant variables (α=.05).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven participants received 51 implants, and the median follow-up period was 30 months (interquartile range: 22-36). Two single-crown implants failed within the first 12 months of delivery. The implant and restoration survival rate was 96% at 36 months. Screw loosening was recorded in 2 study participants. After a follow-up of 36 months, the mean ±standard deviation CBL value was 0.15 ±0.14 mm with an increase over time (P<.001). The effect of the angle of ASC, implant diameter, implant length, prosthetic type, and antagonist on the CBL was not statistically significant (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CBL was not associated with the angle of ASC, implant diameter, implant length, prosthetic type, or antagonist when posterior monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs with ASCs were used. Screw loosening in 2 situations was the only mechanical complication during the first 3 years of service.

Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and mechanical complications of prostheses supported by splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic database (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) and manual searches up to May 2021 were conducted to identify studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). The primary outcome was implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone loss and mechanical complications. The quality of included studies and risk-of-bias were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured 1506 short implants (596 nonsplinted and 910 splinted) with a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 16 years. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) for survival rate (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.01; p = 0.26)) and marginal bone loss (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.07; p = 0.28). Veneer chipping, abutment screw breakage, screw loosening, and loss of retention were reported in the selected studies as common complications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.20, 1.54; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present meta-analysis, it might be concluded that splinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) do not present superior performance in survival rate, marginal bone maintenance and prevention of mechanical complications compared with single-unit prostheses.

Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study

Background

This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

Methods

This case series compared biological and technical complications in single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported bridges in a time framed sample of all patients who received dental implants between 2009 and 2016 in Dubai Health Authority. Only 3-unit implant-supported prostheses (FDPs) with one intervening pontic and an implant each end were included for comparison to single crown supported implants. Cantilevered implants, implant-supported dentures and cases involving bone grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. The primary outcome measure was marginal bone loss, measured on digital radiographs taken after prosthesis placement at baseline and one year after implant loading, whilst peri-implantitis and technical complications were secondary outcomes. Mixed regression models adjusted for clustering of implants within patients was used for patient and implant factor associations.

Results

A total of 454 patients (152 males; 302 females) had 1673 implants. The mean age of males (53.7 years, SD 14.6) was significantly greater than females (49.3 years, SD 12.9, p < 0.001). Mean mesial bone loss on the FDPs was significantly greater at 1 year (1.14 mm, SD 0.63) compared with the mesial surface of single implant-supported crowns (0.30 mm, SD 0.43, p < 0.001). Mean distal bone loss was also significantly greater at 1 year on the distal surfaces of implants supporting bridgework (1.29 mm, SD 0.71) compared with distal surfaces on single implant-supported crowns (0.36 mm, SD 0.54, p < 0.001). Mean marginal bone loss mesially and distally around implants placed in the lower anterior sextant was significantly greater compared to all other sites (p < 0.001). Bone loss by gender, patient’s age and medical condition was not different between the 2 implant groups. Screw loosening was the main technical complication (11.5%) whilst peri-implantitis occurred rarely (0.5%). The 66 cement retained implants had significantly more complications compared to the 1607 screw retained implants (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Mean marginal bone loss around the supporting implants of FDPs (3-unit fixed bridgework) was greater than on single implant-supported crowns at one year after implant loading. Position in the mouth was associated with bone loss. Biological and technical complications occurred rarely.

Assessment of impression material accuracy in complete-arch restorations on four implants

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

New polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials with enhanced properties have been developed to improve and facilitate implant impression techniques. However, studies on their accuracy are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy and precision of implant impressions made with some recently introduced materials on a simulated patient requiring an all-on-4 implant-supported prosthesis. Well-established polyether materials were also evaluated as a comparison. The variables considered were material type, consistency, splinting or not splinting techniques, and implant angulation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A reference master model was made by inserting 4 implants at angles of 0, 5, and 10 degrees. Eighty impressions were made at 37 °C in wet conditions by using a standardized technique. Eight groups (n=10) were created using monophasic, single-viscosity materials (Hydrorise Implant Medium, HIM-ns; Hydrorise Implant Medium, HIM; Honigum Mono, HM; Impregum, IMP), and 2-viscosity materials (Hydrorise Implant Heavy+Light-ns, HIH+L-ns; Hydrorise Implant Heavy+Light, HIH+L; Honigum Heavy+Light, HH+L; and Permadyne and Garant [Heavy+Light, PeH+L]). Hydrorise materials were used with splinting and not splinting (ns) techniques. The reference points located on the connecting platforms of the transfer copings (TCP) were compared with the same points on the implant connecting platforms (ICP) located in the reference model. The accuracy and precision of the impressions were determined as linear 3D errors and standard deviation between each TCP-ICP couple by using an optical coordinate measuring machine (OCMM).

RESULTS

PVS materials were generally better than polyether materials, with Hydrorise materials (HIM and HIH+L) showing significantly better accuracy and precision (30.9 ±14.4 μm and 28.7 ±15.5 μm, respectively) than IMP and PeH+L polyethers (44.2 ±16 μm and 43.8 ±17.6 μm, respectively; P<.001). Honigum materials were statistically similar to Hydrorise materials (P=.765). The values shown by Hydrorise nonsplinted groups (HIH+L-ns and HIM-ns) were not statistically different from those of the splinted polyether impressions (P=.386). The viscosities (monophasic or heavy+light) had no effect on accuracy, but monophasic material positively influenced precision (HIM and HIH+L, P=.001). No correlation was found between implant angulation and accuracy (multilevel analysis and Kendall rank correlation coefficient=-0.065; P=.133).

CONCLUSIONS

Recently introduced materials designed for implant impressions showed significantly higher accuracy and precision; even with the unfavorable nonsplinting technique, the new materials performed similarly to, or better than, polyether materials. Although the transfer coping splinting technique generally improved the accuracy and precision of Hydrorise materials, the effect was significant only within HIH+L groups.

The influence of prosthetic material on implant and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Evaluating the impact of the prosthetic material on implant- and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures.

STUDY SELECTION

Electronic and hand searches were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to identify clinical studies including at least 10 patients restored with implant-supported dentures. The primary outcome was to evaluate the implant survival rate according to the applied restorative materials. The prosthetic survival rate was evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 2254 studies were finally selected. A statistically significant difference (p = 0.0337) was found between implant survival rates in the main restorative groups (metal-ceramic:97%(95%CI [0.96;0.98]), all-ceramic:99%(95%CI [0.98;1.00]), metal-resin:97%(95%CI [0.96;0.98])). Prosthetic survival rates were: (metal-ceramic:95%(95%CI [0.89;0.97]), all-ceramic:97%(95%CI [0.92;0.99]), metal-resin:97%(95%CI [0.95;0.98]), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.3796) between the groups. Chipping incidence rates were as follows: metal-ceramic:8%(95%CI[0.03;0.20]), all-ceramic:15%(95%CI [0.06;0.32]), and metal-resin:22%(95%CI [0.13;0.33]). Five types of exact restorative materials were identified (porcelain-fused-to-non-precious alloy, porcelain-fused-to-zirconia, precious-metal-acrylic-resin, non-precious-metal-acrylic resin, and PMMA). Again, implant survival rates were statistically significantly influenced by the applied restorative materials (p = 0.0126), whereas, no significant differences were reported regarding prosthetic survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic material selection seems to have no clinically relevant influence on implant- and prosthetic survival rate in implant-supported fixed complete dentures. Due to the high chipping rate, quantifying prosthetic survival alone does not seem to be a reliable tool for evaluating the outcome of the restorations and providing recommendations. These results, along with the obvious lack of evidence, suggest that clinicians must exercise caution whenever porcelain-fused-to-zirconia or metal-resin restorations are considered.

Comparison of digital protocols for the measurement of peri-implant marginal bone loss

Background

The measurement of peri-implant marginal bone loss is currently carried out using digital methods of radiographic analysis assisted by various types of software. The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of three different softwares: specific radiology software for the development and visualization of radiological images in DICOM format (3Dicom Viewer®), advanced level software for professional editing of bitmap images (or raster graphics) (Adobe Photoshop®), and mid-level software for processing bitmap-type images, programmed in Java and in the public domain (ImageJ®).

Material and Methods

It was verified that the three softwares used are valid for the measurement of peri-implant marginal bone loss provided that the appropriate protocol is fulfilled.

Results

The results showed no significant differences between Adobe Photoshop® and ImageJ® with respect to 3Dicom Viewer® in the measurements of mesial and distal bone loss of the implants, without influence of the dental sector where they were located.

Conclusions

The measurements made with ImageJ® looked more like those of the control software (3Dicom Viewer®) than those of Adobe Photoshop®, but with a greater degree of dispersion. Thus, Adobe Photoshop® is a slightly inaccurate method but with less dispersion. Key words:Digital measurement, measurement software, peri-implant marginal bone loss, implants.

Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The decision to splint or to restore independently generally occurs during the planning stage, when the advantages and disadvantages of each clinical situation are considered based on the proposed treatment. However, clinical evidence to help clinicians make this decision is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was designed according to the Cochrane criteria for elaborating a systematic review and meta-analysis and adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Also, this review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017080162). An electronic search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted up to November 2017. A specific clinical question was structured according to the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) approach. The addressed focused question was "Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted?" The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 4215 implants were placed in 2185 patients (splinted, 2768; nonsplinted, 1447); the mean follow-up was 87.8 months (range=12-264 months). Quantitative analysis found no significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted restorations for marginal bone loss. The assessed studies reported that 75 implants failed (3.4%), of which 24 were splinted (99.1% of survival rate) and 51 were nonsplinted (96.5% of survival rate). Quantitative analysis of all studies showed statistically significant higher survival rates for splinted restorations than for nonsplinted restorations. Ceramic chipping, screw loosening, abutment screw breakage, and soft tissue inflammation were reported in the selected studies. The quantitative analysis found no statistically significant difference in the prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted restorations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, it was concluded that there was no difference in the marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations; this is especially true for restorations in the posterior region. However, splinted restorations were associated with decreased implant failure.

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Short Implants Placed in the Posterior Mandible: A 1-Year Pilot Split-Mouth Study

In many cases, due to anatomical limitations, the placement of regular-length implants cannot be facilitated without the performance of advanced surgical procedures. However, these are associated with morbidity, prolonged treatment time, and costs. To overcome such disadvantages, short implants were introduced. The aim of this prospective pilot split-mouth study was to compare the clinical outcome between short implants (7 mm) and regular-length (≥10 mm) implants placed in the posterior mandible after 1 year of prosthetic delivery. Ten patients received 4 implants in the posterior mandible. Two short implants were placed in one side and 2 regular-length implants were placed contralaterally. These were restored by means of splinted screw-retained metal-ceramic crowns. Marginal bone loss (MBL) and soft-tissue parameters were compared. No implant failed. Both types of implants showed success rates of 90% and survival rates of 100%. From prosthetic delivery to 1 year post-loading a bone gain of +0.29 mm for short implants and +0.19 mm for regular-length implants was present without showing any statistically significant differences in MBL between the 2 implant types ( P > .05). Bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, probing depth, and crown-to-implant ratio did not show any statistically significant differences between the 2 implant lengths ( P > .05). One case of chipping occurred in the regular-length implant group, leading to a prosthetic survival rate of 95%. Short implants showed a prosthetic survival rate of 100%. After 1 year, short implants showed comparable clinical outcomes to that of regular-length implants, making them a viable treatment option in the posterior mandible.

Experimental Analysis of Temperature Differences During Implant Site Preparation: Continuous Drilling Technique Versus Intermittent Drilling Technique

Implant site preparation through drilling procedures may cause bone thermonecrosis. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate, using a thermal probe, overheating at implant sites during osteotomies through 2 different drilling methods (continuous drilling technique versus intermittent drilling technique) using irrigation at different temperatures. Five implant sites 13 mm in length were performed on 16 blocks (fresh bovine ribs), for a total of 80 implant sites. The PT-100 thermal probe was positioned 5 mm from each site. Two physiological refrigerant solutions were used: one at 23.7°C and one at 6.0°C. Four experimental groups were considered: group A (continuous drilling with physiological solution at 23.7°C), group B (intermittent drilling with physiological solution at 23.7°C), group C (continuous drilling with physiological solution at 6.0°C), and group D (intermittent drilling with physiological solution at 6.0°C). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test (2-tailed) was used to compare groups. While there was no difference between group A and group B (W = 86; P = .45), statistically significant differences were observed between experimental groups A and C (W = 0; P =.0001), B and D (W = 45; P =.0005), and C and D (W = 41; P = .003). Implant site preparation did not affect the overheating of the bone. Statistically significant differences were found with the refrigerant solutions. Using both irrigating solutions, bone temperature did not exceed 47°C.

Does incorporating collagen and chondroitin sulfate matrix in implant surfaces enhance osseointegration? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Implant surface modification has been used to improve osseointegration. However, evidence regarding improved new bone formation (NBF) and osseointegration with the use of collagen-chondroitin sulfate (CS) matrix coated implants remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of collagen-CS matrix coating on the osseointegration of implants. The focused question was "Does the incorporation of collagen-CS matrix in implant surfaces influence osseointegration?" To answer the question, indexed databases were searched up to July 2017 using various combinations of the key words "collagen", "chondroitin sulfate", "osseointegration", and "implants". The initial literature search identified 497 articles, of which 18 reporting experimental studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirteen of the studies included (72%) reported that implants coated with a collagen-CS matrix presented higher NBF, bone-to-implant contact, and/or bone volume density. The strength of this observation was supported by meta-analysis results. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of standardization regarding the dosage formulation of collagen-CS, short-term follow-up, and lack of assessment of confounders. On experimental grounds, the incorporation of collagen-CS matrix into implant surfaces appears to promote osseointegration. From a clinical perspective, the results from animal models support phase I studies in healthy humans.

The influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone levels around splinted short dental implants: A radiological and clincial short term analysis

BACKGROUND

The amount of marginal bone resorption around dental implants is considered to have a significant impact on implant stability as well as implant survival rates.

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the influence of prosthetic as well as patient specific factors on marginal bone loss around short dental implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-six implants, which supported splinted crowns were included for investigation. All implants were from the same type and had an intraosseous length of 6.5 mm and a diameter of 4.0 mm. Twenty implants were additionally splinted onto longer ones. Measurements of marginal bone loss were performed at a mean of 12.38 months after prosthetic loading and the mean follow-up for clinical evaluation was 20.52 months.

RESULTS

Overall two implant failures were recorded, revealing a survival rate of 97.3%. Marginal bone resorption around 72 short implants measured 0.71 mm (SD: 0.74 mm) and was found to have a strong correlation with calculated Crown-to-Implant ratio (r = .71; P < .001). Age, gender, insertion torque, implant surface area, location, position, bone quality, and insertion torque did not influence peri-implant bone loss after one year of loading.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the study, it is suggested that Crown-to-Implant ratios should not exceed 1.7 to avoid increased early marginal bone loss.

Effect of local zoledronate delivery on osseointegration: a systematic review of preclinical studies

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the effect of local zoledronate (ZOL) delivery (topical or as implant surface coatings) on osseointegration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this systematic review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. To address the focused question, 'Does local zoledronate delivery enhance osseointegration?' indexed databases were searched without time or language restrictions up to and including April 2017 using various combination of the following keywords: 'zoledronate', 'bisphosphonates', 'osseointegration' and 'topical administration'. Letters to the Editor, historic reviews, commentaries, case-series and case-reports were excluded.

RESULTS

Initially, 383 articles were identified out of which, 23 experimental studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 18 studies, ZOL was incorporated into implants surfaces as a coating and in five studies ZOL was applied topically (bone graft or irrigation) into the bone cavities. Results from 87% studies reported that local delivery of ZOL (coating or topical) is effective in enhancing osseointegration or new bone formation around implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Local ZOL delivery (coating or topical) seems to enhance osseointegration in animals; however, from a clinical perspective, further randomized control trials with long-term follow-up are needed in this regard.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of single tantalum dental implants: a prospective pilot clinical study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective pilot clinical case series report was to evaluate, through a clinical and radiographic analysis, the peri-implant bone resorption of the tantalum dental implants (TMT) (Zimmer TMT, Parsippany, NJ, USA) one year after prosthetic rehabilitation.

METHODS

Twenty tantalum dental implants were placed in both maxillas and mandibles of 20 patients. Patients were asked to attend a radiographic and clinical follow-up and their previous clinical records and X-rays were assessed. Bone levels were calculated by digitally measuring the distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant on periapical radiographs taken at surgery and after 6 and 12 months of functioning. The Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess it there was a correlation between the measurement of the marginal bone loss (MBL). The Anova Test with a post-hoc analysis using Bonferroni's test was used to compare the three group (0, 6 months and 12 months).

RESULTS

The mean total MBL for the group 0 months was 0.84 mm (SD 0.21), 6 months was 0.87 mm (SD 0.22) and for 12 months was 0.89 mm (SD 0.23). The values of the Pearson's coefficients showed that the data measurement were positively correlated. The Anova test showed a statistically significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss can be considered physiological. Within the limits of this study it can be concluded that TMT implants have an excellent bone crest's stability, however, to have most accurate information, will be necessary extend the sample.

Implant-abutment connections on single crowns: a systematic review

Different implant-abutment connections have been developed in the effort of reducing mechanical and biological failure. The most frequent complications are screw loosening, abutment or implant fracture and marginal bone loss due to overload and bacterial micro-leakage. Ideal connection should work as a one-piece implant avoiding the formation of a micro-gap at the implant-abutment interface. Different in vitro and in vivo researches have been published to compare the implant-abutment connections actually available: external hexagon, internal hexagon and conical finding different amount of micro-gap, micro-leakage and marginal bone loss. The aim of this article is to describe, according to the most recent literature, different kind of fixture-abutment connections and their clinical and mechanical advantages or disadvantages.

Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.

Crestal Bone Loss Around Adjacent Dental Implants Restored with Splinted and Nonsplinted Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the crestal bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted adjacent implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To address the focused question, "Is crestal bone loss around adjacent implants different with splinted from that with nonsplinted restorations?," indexed databases were searched from 1965 up to and including May 2016 using various combinations of the following keywords: "implant," "splinted," "nonsplinted," "unsplinted," "connected," "unconnected," "nonconnected," and "bone loss." Letters to the editor, commentaries, historic reviews, case reports, case series, animal studies, and studies on full-arch rehabilitation were excluded.

RESULTS

Six studies were included with titanium implants ranging from 114 to 1187 implants. All studies had nonsplinted and splinted restorations that ranged from 20 to 234 restorations and from 60 to 970 restorations, respectively. In all the studies, the follow-up period after the restoration placement ranged between 1 and 22 years, with a mean follow-up ranging between 3 and 10.18 ± 3.18 years. In all studies, the mean crestal bone loss for implants restored with nonsplinted restorations ranged between 0.30 ± 0.65 and 1.3 ± 0.2 mm, whereas the mean crestal bone loss for implants restored with splinted restorations ranged between 0.50 ± 0.8 and 1.22 ± 0.95 mm.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this review it is concluded that adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted fixed restorations did not exhibit a difference in crestal bone loss. The evidence from this systematic review suggests further investigation.

Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme

PURPOSE

To propose a length-and-diameter-based classification scheme for dental implants to standardize terminology in the dental literature and communication between interested parties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was mainly based on searching two major resources: published scientific research papers and 14 of the most popular dental implant manufacturers. Indexed databases were searched from January 2004 up to and including February 2016 using the keywords "dental implant length" and "dental implant diameter." Retrieved titles and abstracts were screened, and related full-text articles were reviewed. Full-text articles that clearly stated the terms and measurements of implants used were included and considered for proposing this classification scheme.

RESULTS

The initial search for implant diameter and length yielded 1007 and 936 articles, respectively. A total of 85 studies (41 about diameter, 44 about length) were selected and reviewed. The remaining studies (966 about diameter, 892 about length) that did not abide by the eligibility criteria were excluded. The terms "long," "short," "standard," "wide," and "narrow" were the most commonly used terms in the literature. A classification scheme for implants by diameter and length was proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Indexed publications contain a variety of terms used by authors to describe diameter and length of dental implants without conformity and standardization. The classification scheme proposed in this article could serve as a reference for interested parties.

In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material

PURPOSE

The study aims to evaluate three-dimensionally (3D) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, "Smart Dentin Replacement" (SDR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw-retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR; C (control): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C, additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer-aided design (CAD) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used to compare groups.

RESULTS

While there was no difference (p = .430) between the mean 3D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences (p < .003) compared with both control groups (C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR. Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.

Reasons for failures of oral implants

This study reviews the literature regarding the factors contributing to failures of dental implants. An electronic search was undertaken including papers from 2004 onwards. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. All reference lists of the selected studies were then hand-searched, this time without time restrictions. A narrative review discussed some findings from the first two parts where separate data from non-comparative studies may have indicated conclusions different from those possible to draw in the systematic analysis. It may be suggested that the following situations are correlated to increase the implant failure rate: a low insertion torque of implants that are planned to be immediately or early loaded, inexperienced surgeons inserting the implants, implant insertion in the maxilla, implant insertion in the posterior region of the jaws, implants in heavy smokers, implant insertion in bone qualities type III and IV, implant insertion in places with small bone volumes, use of shorter length implants, greater number of implants placed per patient, lack of initial implant stability, use of cylindrical (non-threaded) implants and prosthetic rehabilitation with implant-supported overdentures. Moreover, it may be suggested that the following situations may be correlated with an increase in the implant failure rate: use of the non-submerged technique, immediate loading, implant insertion in fresh extraction sockets, smaller diameter implants. Some recently published studies suggest that modern, moderately rough implants may present with similar results irrespective if placed in maxillas, in smoking patients or using only short implants.