-
BMC Oral Health Jul 2022Implantology represents the gold standard for oral rehabilitation, unfortunately, often, despite there are no local contraindications to this type of rehabilitation,...
OBJECTIVE
Implantology represents the gold standard for oral rehabilitation, unfortunately, often, despite there are no local contraindications to this type of rehabilitation, there are uncertainties regarding the general health of our patients. Many patients nowadays take bisphosphonate drugs, often without first seeking advice from an oral surgeon or a dentist. The purpose of this review is precisely to highlight any contraindications to this type of treatment reported in the literature, in patients who take or have taken bisphosphonate drugs.
METHODS
For this study the scientific information sources were consulted using as search terms "("bisphosphonate AND "dental implant")", obtaining 312 results, these were subsequently skimmed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and further evaluated their relevance to the study and the presence of requested outcomes.
RESULTS
Only 9 manuscripts (RCTs, Multicentric studies and Clinical Trials) were included in this review, as they respected the parameters of this review, they were analyzed and it was possible to draw important results from them. Surely from this study it is understood that the use of bisphosphonate drugs does not represent an absolute contraindication to implant therapy, it is evident how adequate pharmacological prophylaxis, and an adequate protocol reduce the risks regarding implant failures. Furthermore, the values of marginal bone loss over time seem, even if not statistically significant, to be better in implant rehabilitation with bisphosphonate drugs association. Only a few molecules like risedronate, or corticosteroids, or some conditions like smoking or diabetes have shown a high risk of surgical failure.
CONCLUSION
Although this study considered different studies for a total of 378 patients and at least 1687 different dental implants, showing better results in some cases for dental implant therapy in cases of bisphosphonate intake, further clinical, randomized and multicentric studies are needed, with longer follow-ups, to fully clarify this situation which often negatively affects the quality of life of our patients and places clinicians in the face of doubts.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Diphosphonates; Humans; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35843929
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02330-y -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To assess the impact of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the impact of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes of PRF administration for bone regeneration and implant therapy?
METHOD
A systematic literature search comprised three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane followed by a hand search of relevant scientific journals. Human studies using PRF for bone regeneration and implant therapy were considered and articles published up to December 31, 2017 were included. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included.
RESULTS
In total, 5,963 titles were identified with the search terms and by hand search. A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT) met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for data extraction. Included studies focused on alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, osseointegration process, soft tissue management, bone augmentation, bone regeneration after sinus floor elevation and surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate or unclear. Nine studies showed superior outcomes for PRF for any of the evaluated variables, such as ridge dimension, bone regeneration, osseointegration process, soft tissue healing. Three studies failed to show any beneficial effects of PRF. No meta-analysis could be performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs.
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate evidence supporting the clinical benefit of PRF on ridge preservation and in the early phase of osseointegration. It remains unclear whether PRF can reduce pain and improve soft tissue healing. More research support is necessary to comment on the role of PRF to improve other implant therapy outcomes.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Bone Regeneration; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Humans; Platelet-Rich Fibrin
PubMed: 30306698
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13275 -
The Japanese Dental Science Review Dec 2023The use of graphecs excellent mechanical properties. However, it is necessary to evaluate the biological effects of this material. This systematic review aimed to... (Review)
Review
The use of graphecs excellent mechanical properties. However, it is necessary to evaluate the biological effects of this material. This systematic review aimed to observe and understand through studies the current state of the art regarding osseointegration, antimicrobial capacity, and the cytotoxicity of graphene coating applied to the surface of dental implant materials. Searches in PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were conducted between June and July 2021 and updated in May 2022 using the keywords: graphene, graphene oxide, dental implants, zirconium, titanium, peek, aluminum, disilicate, methyl-methacrylate, cytotoxicity, osseointegration, and bone regeneration. The criteria included in vivo and in vitro studies that evaluated antimicrobial capacity and/or osseointegration and/or cytotoxicity of dental implant materials coated with graphene compounds. The risk of bias for in vitro studies was assessed by the JBI tool, and for in vivo studies, Syrcle's risk of bias tool for animal studies was used. The database search resulted in 176 articles. Of the 18 articles selected for full reading, 16 remained in this systematic review. The use of graphene compounds as coatings on the surface of implant materials is promising because it promotes osseointegration and has antimicrobial capacity. However, further studies are needed to ensure its cytotoxic potential.
PubMed: 37680613
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2023.08.005 -
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2023Recently, nutraceuticals have been widely explored in many medical fields and their use is also increasing in oral and dental problems. Since the nutraceutical evidence... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Recently, nutraceuticals have been widely explored in many medical fields and their use is also increasing in oral and dental problems. Since the nutraceutical evidence landscape in the literature has not been fully elucidated yet, this review aims to examine the effects of commercially available nutraceuticals and their potential evidence and applications in dentistry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A scoping review was conducted following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)" checklist. The electronic search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science on March 2022. The inclusion criteria include humans, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials (RCT), reviews, and systematic reviews published over the last ten years.
RESULTS
18 studies met the eligibility criteria. There were 2 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews, and four narrative reviews. In most studies, the clinical indications were oral leucoplakia, periodontitis, osseointegration of implants, oral mucositis, oral clefts, and oral health. Probiotics, prebiotics, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamins A, B, C, D, and E were the most common nutraceuticals used in dentistry.
CONCLUSIONS
Nutraceuticals are foods that, according to the literature, may be useful for preventing and treating dental diseases.
Topics: Humans; Dietary Supplements; Vitamins; Osseointegration; Vitamin A; Dentistry
PubMed: 37318464
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202306_32607 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Nov 2017The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for periapical implant lesion, which makes a patient more susceptible to the periapical lesion,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for periapical implant lesion, which makes a patient more susceptible to the periapical lesion, frequency, symptoms, signs (including radiological findings) and possible treatment options.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review and analysis of publications included in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane; articles published until March 2016; with a populations, exposures and outcomes (PEO) search strategy was performed, focused on the issue: "In patients with periapical lesion to the implant during the osseointegration, what symptoms, signs, and changes in complementary examination manifested, for according to that stage, be intervened with the appropriate approach?". The set criteria for inclusion were peer-reviewed articles.
RESULTS
From a total of 212 papers identified, 36 studies were included in this systematic review, with 15461 implants evaluated and 183 periapical implant lesions. Which 8 papers included more than 5 cases and 28 included equal or less than 5 cases. Analysis of the papers revealed that periapical implant lesion is classified according to evolution stages into acute (non-suppurated and suppurated) and subacute (or suppurated-fistulized). In the acute stage and in the subacute if there is no loss of implant stability, the correct treatment approach is implant periapical surgery. In the subacute stage associated with implant mobility the implant must be removed.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on the subject is very limited, there are few studies with small sample, without homogeneity of criteria for diagnosing the disease and without design of scientific evidence. Currently etiology lacks consensus. The early diagnosis of periapical implant periapical lesions during the osseointegration phase and early treatment, will lead to a higher survival rate of implants treated, hence preventing the need for implant extraction.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 29053646
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21698 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Dec 2016Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been suggested as an alternative to replace titanium as a dental implant material. However, PEEK's bioactivity and osseointegration are... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been suggested as an alternative to replace titanium as a dental implant material. However, PEEK's bioactivity and osseointegration are debatable. This review has systematically analyzed studies that have compared PEEK (or PEEK-based) implants with titanium implants so that its feasibility as a possible replacement for titanium can be determined. The focused question was: "Are the bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK implants comparable to or better than titanium implants?" Using the key words "dental implant," "implant," "polyetheretherketone," "PEEK," and "titanium" in various combinations, the following databases were searched electronically: PubMED/MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Database. 5 in vitro and 4 animal studies were included in the review. In 4 out of 5 in vitro studies, titanium exhibited more cellular proliferation, angiogenesis, osteoblast maturation, and osteogenesis compared to PEEK; one in vitro study observed comparable outcomes regardless of the implant material. In all animal studies, uncoated and coated titanium exhibited a more osteogenic behavior than did uncoated PEEK, while comparable bone-implant contact was observed in HA-coated PEEK and coated titanium implants. Unmodified PEEK is less osseoconductive and bioactive than titanium. Furthermore, the majority of studies had multiple sources of bias; hence, in its unmodified form, PEEK is unsuitable to be used as dental implant. Significantly more research and long-term trials must focus on improving the bioactivity of PEEK before it can be used as dental implant. More comparative animal and clinical studies are warranted to ascertain the potential of PEEK as a viable alternative to titanium.
Topics: Animals; Benzophenones; Dental Implants; Ketones; Osseointegration; Polyethylene Glycols; Polymers; Titanium
PubMed: 27560166
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00072 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Oct 2023Knowledge of the effectiveness of hydroxyapatite coatings on the surface of titanium dental implants is lacking because of difficulties in standardizing their thickness,... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Knowledge of the effectiveness of hydroxyapatite coatings on the surface of titanium dental implants is lacking because of difficulties in standardizing their thickness, roughness, and effect on osseointegration. The selection of articles describing this coating in osseointegration will be of great relevance to implant dentistry.
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to answer the question, "How effective is hydroxyapatite on titanium surfaces for osseointegration?"
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were followed, and the protocol was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42023422601). The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched, and articles were selected manually in 2 steps by 2 blinded investigators according to the previously selected eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the systematic review center for laboratory animal experimentation (SYRCLE) tool.
RESULTS
Initially, 671 results were found. After analysis of eligibility criteria and full reading, 15 articles were included in the present review. Of these, 12 reported favorable osseointegration results for hydroxyapatite-coated surfaces, and 3 found no significant long-term difference between the coated and uncoated groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Hydroxyapatite surface treatment is effective in the osseointegration of titanium dental implants because it favors the absorption of proteins, adhesion, and proliferation of bone cells when obtained by methods that ensure proper adhesion. (J Prosthet Dent xxxx;xxx:xxx-xxx).
PubMed: 37845113
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.019 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2018This systematic review sought to analyze different experimental peri-implantitis models, their potential to induce marginal bone resorption (MBR) and the necessity of... (Review)
Review
This systematic review sought to analyze different experimental peri-implantitis models, their potential to induce marginal bone resorption (MBR) and the necessity of bacteria for bone loss to occur in these models. An electronic search in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect was undertaken. A total of 133 studies were analyzed. Most studies induced peri-implantitis with ligatures that had formed a biofilm, sometimes in combination with inoculation of specific bacteria but never in a sterile environment. Most vertical MBR resulted from new ligatures periodically packed above old ones, followed by periodically exchanged ligatures and ligatures that were not exchanged. Cotton ligatures produced the most MBR, followed by steel, "dental floss" (not further specified in the studies) and silk. The amount of MBR varied significantly between different animal types and implant surfaces. None of the analyzed ligature studies aimed to validate that bacteria are necessary for the inducement of MBR. It cannot be excluded that bone loss can be achieved by other factors of the model, such as an immunological reaction to the ligature itself or trauma from repeated ligature insertions. Because all the included trials allowed plaque accumulation on the ligatures, bone resorbing capacity due to other factors could not be excluded or evaluated here.
PubMed: 30486492
DOI: 10.3390/jcm7120492 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Aug 2018Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence of splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems on the marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published up to October 2017, using the following search terms: "overdenture AND attachment OR overdenture AND bar OR overdenture splinted." The PICO question "Do splinted overdenture attachment systems promote better clinical results in comparison to unsplinted systems?" was evaluated. Eligible studies included randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective studies with at least 10 participants and a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and studies published in English that compared splinted and unsplinted attachment systems within the same study. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered for all outcomes analysed. After completion of the different steps in the article selection process, nine articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 984 implants were placed in 380 patients (mean age: 62.8 years). The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between splinted and unsplinted attachment systems with regard to marginal bone loss (P = .39; MD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.14), complications (P = .31; RR: 1.26; CI: 0.80-1.99) and implant survival rate (P = .14; RR: 0.37% CI: 0.10-1.36). In addition, splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems achieved similar results with regard to marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Design; Denture Precision Attachment; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Osseointegration; Periodontal Attachment Loss
PubMed: 29761853
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12651 -
Acta Biomaterialia Oct 2023Titanium (Ti) and Ti alloys are commonly used in dental implants, which have good biocompatibility, mechanical strength, processability, and corrosion resistance.... (Review)
Review
Titanium (Ti) and Ti alloys are commonly used in dental implants, which have good biocompatibility, mechanical strength, processability, and corrosion resistance. However, the surface inertia of Ti implants leads to delayed integration of Ti and new bone, as well as problems such as aseptic loosening and inadequate osseointegration. Magnesium (Mg) ions can promote bone regeneration, and many studies have used Mg-containing materials to modify the Ti implant surface. This systematic review summarizes the methods, effects, and clinical applications of surface modification of Ti implants with Mg-containing coatings. Database collection was completed on Janury 1, 2023, and a total of 29 relevant studies were ultimately included. Mg can be compounded with different materials and coated to the surface of Ti implants using different methods. In vitro and in vivo experiments have shown that Mg-containing coatings promote cell adhesion and osteogenic differentiation. On the one hand, the surface roughness of implants increases with the addition of Mg-containing coatings, which is thought to have an impact on the osseointegration of the implant. On the other hand, Mg ions promote cell attachment through binding interactions between the integrin family and FAK-related signaling pathways. And Mg ions could induce osseointegration by activating PI3K, Notch, ERK/c-Fos, BMP-4-related signaling pathways and TRPM7 protein channels. Overall, Mg-based coatings show great potential for the surface modification of Ti implants to promote osseointegration. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The inertia surface of titanium (Ti) implants leads to delayed osseointegration. Magnesium (Mg) ions, known for promoting bone regeneration, have been extensively studied to modify the surface of Ti implants. However, no consensus has been reached on the appropriate processing methods, surface roughness and effective concentration of Mg-containing coatings for osseointegration. This systematic review focus on the surface modification of Ti implants with Mg-containing compounds, highlighting the effects of Mg-containing coatings on the surface properties of Ti implants and its associated mechanisms. Besides, we also provide an outlook on future directions to promote the clinical application of Mg-modified implants.
Topics: Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Ions; Magnesium; Osseointegration; Osteogenesis; Surface Properties; Titanium
PubMed: 37517617
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.07.048