Risk Characteristics of Peri-Implant Infections: A Retrospective Evaluation in a University Consultation Setting

Electric Current Application on Dental Implant Biofilms: Review

The prevalence of complications due to the presence of biofilms in dental implant surfaces and their relationship with peri-implant diseases, namely peri-implantitis, remain difficult problems to overcome. The information available about the application of electric current on dental implant biofilms; its parameters, namely current level, voltage and exposure time; and related effects are still not enough to understand which individual mechanisms are caused by this technique, culminating in the decrease or eradication of the biofilm. The purpose of this narrative review, based on a systematic search, is to understand the effect of electric current directly applied to biofilms present in dental implants and which parameters are used. For the systematic search, electronic databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to and including November 2023, were searched. Seven studies were included. A 12-item checklist was used to assess their methodological quality. All studies used direct/constant electric current; however, that use was not achieved by the same protocol/set-up. Parameters such as current, voltage, resistance, and actuation time were different in all studies. Monospecies and multi-species biofilm were used in the substrate made of titanium. The results indicate that the use of constant and alternating electric current directly applied to dental implant's surfaces is a promising way to treat problems related to biofilms and peri-implant diseases. Future trials, namely in vivo tests, are necessary to reveal all the potential of this treatment.

Simultaneous Implant and Guided Bone Regeneration Using Bovine-Derived Xenograft and Acellular Dermal Matrix in Aesthetic Zone

INTRODUCTION

Implant placement in the maxillary anterior area requires sufficient quantity and quality of both soft and hard tissue. In cases where soft and hard tissues are insufficient, additional regeneration using biomaterials is recommended. Treatment using bovine-derived xenograft and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may increase bone volume and soft tissue thickness. Case and management: A 65-year-old woman sought help for discomfort and aesthetic issues with her denture, reporting missing teeth (11, 12, 13, 14, and 21) and bone volume shrinkage due to disuse atrophy. Intraoral examination revealed 1 mm gingival thickness. CBCT showed labio-palatal bone thickness of 6.0 mm, 5.8 mm, and 4.7 mm for teeth 21, 12 and 14, respectively. Implant planning and surgical guide fabrication were carried out before the surgery. Surgery included the placement of implants 3.3 mm in diameter and 12 mm in length, with the use of xenograft and ADM. Three months post-op, improvements in soft and hard tissues were observed, with a final prosthesis being a long-span implant-supported bridge.

CONCLUSIONS

Disuse alveolar atrophy causes soft and hard tissue deficiency. The use of xenograft and ADM show favourable results even on a geriatric patient.

Monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic single-tooth crowns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty subjects in need of an implant-borne restoration were randomly assigned to receive either a cement-retained (CRR) or a screw-retained (SRR) implant-supported monolithic lithium disilicate (LS₂ ) reconstruction. Each patient received a titanium implant with in internal conic connection. After osseointegration and second-stage surgery, healing abutments were placed for about 10 days. The type of restoration (CRR vs. SRR) was randomly assigned, and the restorations were manufactured of monolithic LS₂ . Both types of restorations, CRR and SRR, were based on a titanium component (Ti-base) that was bonded to the abutment (CRR) or the crown (SRR). The follow-up period for all restoration was 36 months. Clinical outcome was evaluated according to Functional Implant Prosthetic Score (FIPS). Quality of live (OHIP) and patient's satisfaction were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Primary endpoint was loss of restoration for any reason. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed and log-rank testing was performed (p < .05).

RESULTS

One restoration of group CRR failed after 6 months due to loss of adhesion between Ti-base and individual abutment. No further biological or technical failures occurred. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference between both treatment options (p = .317). There was no statistically significant difference between both types of restoration, neither for FIPS, OHIP, treatment time nor patient satisfaction (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutment with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns using lithium disilicate showed no statistically significant difference for implant-based reconstructions in this pilot RCT setting.