A Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Immediate vs. Early Loading (4 Weeks) of Implants with a New Thermo-Chemically Treated Surface: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Cumulative success rate and marginal bone loss for immediate and early loading protocols in a single implant-supported crown: A randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

New loading protocols with reduced treatment time have gained popularity because of their advantages. However, whether the success rate with immediate loading (IL) is worse than with early loading (EL) is still unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial with a split-mouth design was to evaluate the marginal bone loss and the cumulative success rate (CSR) 1 year after an IL protocol in single implant-supported crowns. The test groups were loaded after less than 24 hours (test group) and EL at 60 days (control group).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventeen participants received 34 implants. The recall appointments were at baseline, 30 days, 60 days, and 1 year. The outcome measures evaluated were pain, implant clinical mobility, probing depth measurements, peri-implant disease, marginal bone loss, implant insertion torque, implant stability quotient (ISQ) value, and the CSR. A 2-way repeated measures ANOVA identified the significant differences for probing depth and ISQ. A 3-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by a pairwise t test analyzed marginal bone loss, and a nonparametric Wilcoxon test analyzed insertion torque (α=.05).

RESULTS

No differences were found between the insertion torque, ISQ, and marginal bone loss values (P>.05). When analyzing probing depth, no differences were found when comparing IL versus EL at baseline, 30 days, and 1 year (P>.05). The global CSR was 91.17%, 88.23% for the IL group and 94.11% for the EL group.

CONCLUSIONS

When analyzing marginal bone loss, the groups were similar. The global CSR was 91.17%, 88.23% for the IL group, and 94.11% for the EL group.

Immediate vs. Delayed Placement of Immediately Provisionalized Self-Tapping Implants: A Non-Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with 1 Year of Follow-Up

This study aimed to examine the clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediately provisionalized self-tapping implants placed in extraction sockets or healed edentulous ridges one year after treatment. Sixty patients in need of a single implant-supported restoration were treated with self-tapping implants (Straumann BLX) and immediate provisionalization. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) and insertion torque were recorded intraoperatively. After one year in function, the implant and prosthesis survival rate, pink esthetic score (PES), white esthetic score (WES), and marginal bone levels (MBL) were assessed. Sixty patients received 60 self-tapping implants. A total of 37 implants were placed in extraction sockets and 23 in edentulous ridges, and then all implants were immediately provisionalized. All implants achieved a high implant stability with a mean insertion torque and ISQ value of 58.1 ± 14.1 Ncm and 73.6 ± 8.1 Ncm, respectively. No significant differences were found between healed vs. post-extractive sockets (p = 0.716 and p = 0.875), or between flap vs. flapless approaches (p = 0.862 and p = 0.228) with regards to the insertion torque and ISQ value. Nonetheless, higher insertion torque values and ISQs were recorded for mandibular implants (maxilla vs. mandible, insertion torque: 55.30 + 11.25 Ncm vs. 62.41 + 17.01 Ncm, p = 0.057; ISQ: 72.05 + 8.27 vs. 76.08 + 7.37, p = 0.058). One implant did not osseointegrate, resulting in an implant survival rate of 98.3%. All implants achieved PES and WES scores higher than 12 at the 1-year follow-up. The clinical use of newly designed self-tapping implants with immediate temporization was safe and predictable. The implants achieved a good primary stability, high implant survival rate, and favorable radiographic and esthetic outcomes, regardless of the immediate or delayed placement protocols.

Impact of Platform Switched Implants on Marginal Bone Level in Mandibular Overdentures: A Six-Year Follow-Up Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the platform-switched implant on marginal bone loss (MBL) and the probing pocket depth (PPD) in patients wearing mandibular overdenture.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This longitudinal study included 40 completely edentulous patients aged 51-64 years. All patients received complete dentures and were distributed into two groups randomly; 20 patients each. The first group GI received two platform switched implants; however, the 2nd group GII received two platform matched implants (3.6 × 11.5 mm) in the canine region of the mandible. The radiographic evaluations were carried out every year for six years, whereas probing pocket depth was evaluated every six months for 72 months for both groups. The data were analyzed by repeated ANOVA, Friedman's, and Student's t-test.

RESULTS

This study included 36 patients; 56 ± 3.6 years was the mean age; 17 females (47%) and 19 males (53%) completed the study. Statistically significant differences were observed in MBL and PPD in each of GI and GII after 6 years, p ≤ 0.05. Between GI and GII after 6 years, a statistically insignificant difference was detected in MBL or PPD, p ≥ 0.05, except in PPD at loading, 2 and 6 years, p ≤ 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Time positively affected MBL and PPD in platform switched and matched implants retained mandibular overdentures. Platform switching influences probing pocket depth in implants retained mandibular overdentures.

Assessment of Quality of Life and Supporting Structures in Implant Retained Mandibular Overdenture: A 5-Year Cohort Study

Aim

To assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), marginal bone loss (MBL), and changes in soft tissue including probing pocket depth and implant stability in 2 implants retained mandibular overdentures during 5 years follow-up periods.

Methods

Forty completely edentulous patients with age 51-64 years were recruited for that longitudinal cohort study. Complete dentures were performed for all participants. Two implants (3.6 × 11.5 mm) were installed in the canine areas of the mandible. OHRQoL and MBL measures were performed every 1 year for 5 years, while clinical measures were made every 6 months for 60 months. Data were examined using repeated ANOVA and Friedman test.

Results

Thirty-seven patients had 74 implants; with mean age 56 ± 3.6 years; 43% females (n = 16) and 57% males (n = 21) accomplished the study. There were statistically significant differences in OHRQoL, MBL, and changes in soft tissue, including probing pocket depth and implant stability in 2 implants retained mandibular overdentures during 5 years follow-up periods, p ≤ 0.05.

Conclusion

Mandibular overdentures retained by 2 implants provide a positive long-term effect on OHRQoL, MBL, probing pocket depth, and implant stability.

The Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration and Biofilm Formation

Implant surface design has evolved to meet oral rehabilitation challenges in both healthy and compromised bone. For example, to conquer the most common dental implant-related complications, peri-implantitis, and subsequent implant loss, implant surfaces have been modified to introduce desired properties to a dental implant and thus increase the implant success rate and expand their indications. Until now, a diversity of implant surface modifications, including different physical, chemical, and biological techniques, have been applied to a broad range of materials, such as titanium, zirconia, and polyether ether ketone, to achieve these goals. Ideal modifications enhance the interaction between the implant's surface and its surrounding bone which will facilitate osseointegration while minimizing the bacterial colonization to reduce the risk of biofilm formation. This review article aims to comprehensively discuss currently available implant surface modifications commonly used in implantology in terms of their impact on osseointegration and biofilm formation, which is critical for clinicians to choose the most suitable materials to improve the success and survival of implantation.