-
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2024Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been characterized as a regenerative biomaterial that is fully resorbed within a typical 2-3 week period. Very recently, however, a...
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been characterized as a regenerative biomaterial that is fully resorbed within a typical 2-3 week period. Very recently, however, a novel heating process was shown to extend the working properties of PRP/PRF from a standard 2-3 week period toward a duration of 4-6 months. Numerous clinicians have now utilized this extended-PRF (e-PRF) membrane as a substitute for collagen barrier membranes in various clinical applications, such as guided tissue/bone regeneration. This review article summarizes the scientific work to date on this novel technology, including its current and future applications in periodontology, implant dentistry, orthopedics and facial aesthetics. A systematic review was conducted investigating key terms including "Bio-Heat," "albumin gel," "albumin-PRF," "Alb-PRF," "extended-PRF," "e-PRF," "activated plasma albumin gel," and "APAG" by searching databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed. Findings from preclinical studies demonstrate that following a simple 10-min heating process, the transformation of the liquid plasma albumin layer into a gel-like injectable albumin gel extends the resorption properties to at least 4 months according to ISO standard 10 993 (subcutaneous animal model). Several clinical studies have now demonstrated the use of e-PRF membranes as a replacement for collagen membranes in GTR/GBR procedures, closing lateral windows in sinus grafting procedures, for extraction site management, and as a stable biological membrane during recession coverage procedures. Furthermore, Alb-PRF may also be injected as a regenerative biological filler that lasts extended periods with advantages in joint injections, osteoarthritis and in the field of facial aesthetics. This article highlights the marked improvement in the stability and degradation properties of the novel Alb-PRF/e-PRF technology with its widespread future potential use as a potential replacement for collagen membranes with indications including extraction site management, GBR procedures, lateral sinus window closure, recession coverage among others, and further highlights its use as a biological regenerative filler for joint injections and facial aesthetics. It is hoped that this review will pioneer future opportunities and research development in the field, leading to further progression toward more natural and less costly biomaterials for use in medicine and dentistry.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Membranes, Artificial; Platelet-Rich Fibrin
PubMed: 37986559
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12537 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane to identify publications reporting on the outcomes of Type 1A for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. The success and survival rates of the included articles were reported, which were further categorized according to the clinical criteria reported in Type 1A. Mean survival rates were univariately compared between risk groups and additionally between studies published before and since 2012 using bias-corrected and study size-weighed bootstrap tests. A study time-correcting meta-analysis was then performed to obtain an overall effect for the study pool.
RESULTS
A total of 3118 publications were identified in the search, with a total of 68 articles included. A mean number of implants per study were 37.2 and mean follow-up was 2.8 years. All the included studies utilizing Type 1A report highly selective inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate risk group comparison determined that studies before 2012 report a significantly lower mean survival rate (difference of -1.9 percentage points [PP], 95% CI: [-0.3, -4.0], p = .02), facial gap dimension had an impact on survival rates (+3.1 PP [0.2, 5.3] for width >2 mm, p = .04), as well as presence of endodontic infection (+2.6 PP [0.9, 5.1], p = .004).
CONCLUSIONS
Type 1A has a high survival rate in studies reporting strict patient and site selection criteria. Further research is required to assess esthetic and functional success with Type 1A treatments.
Topics: Humans; Patient Selection; Dental Implants; Esthetics, Dental; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37750515
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14109 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023To review the available literature on the medium- and long-term effects of soft tissue augmentation (STA) at implant sites and to explore the effects of the different... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review the available literature on the medium- and long-term effects of soft tissue augmentation (STA) at implant sites and to explore the effects of the different approaches on clinical-, patient-reported, and health-related parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify prospective clinical studies that assessed the medium- and long-term (≥36 months) outcomes following STA, including number of sites maintaining peri-implant health and number of sites developing peri-implant disease, incidence of complications, stability of the clinical, volumetric, and radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis. STA was performed with either a bilaminar- or an apically positioned flap (APF) approach, in combination with autogenous grafts (free gingival graft [FGG] and connective tissue graft [CTG]) or substitutes (acellular dermal matrix [ADM] and xenogeneic cross-linked collagen matrix [CCM]). An overall high survival rate was observed. Most of the augmented implant sites maintained peri-implant health in the medium and long term, with the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis ranging from 0% to 50% and from 0% to 7.14%, respectively. The position of the soft tissue margin following APF + FGG and bilaminar approaches involving CTG or CCM was found to be stable over time. No substantial changes were reported for plaque score/index, bleeding on probing/bleeding index, and probing depth between early time points and following visits. CTG-based STA procedures resulted in a stable or increased dimension of keratinized mucosa width (KMW) and mucosal thickness (MT)/volumetric outcomes over time, when compared with early follow-ups. Most of the included studies described stable marginal bone levels at the grafted implant sites over time. No substantial changes for patient-reported outcomes and professionally assessed esthetic results were reported at different time points.
CONCLUSIONS
Implants that received STA showed overall high survival rate and relatively low incidence of peri-implantitis in the medium and long term. Augmented sites seem to maintain the level of soft tissue margin and marginal bone over time, while non-augmented implants may exhibit apical shift of the soft tissue margin. The overall favorable early outcomes obtained with STA are maintained in the medium and long term, with an increase in KMW and MT that may be expected over time at CTG-augmented sites.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Prospective Studies; Dental Implants; Oral Surgical Procedures; Acellular Dermis
PubMed: 37750532
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14150 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2023Artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed for periodontal applications, including diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease, but their accuracy and... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed for periodontal applications, including diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease, but their accuracy and maturity of the technology remain unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the performance of the AI models for detecting dental plaque and diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A review was performed in 4 databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies were classified into 4 groups: detecting dental plaque, diagnosis of gingivitis, diagnosis of periodontal disease from intraoral images, and diagnosis of alveolar bone loss from periapical, bitewing, and panoramic radiographs. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were included: 2 studies developed AI models for detecting plaque, resulting in accuracy ranging from 73.6% to 99%; 7 studies assessed the ability to diagnose gingivitis from intraoral photographs reporting an accuracy between 74% and 78.20%; 1 study used fluorescent intraoral images to diagnose gingivitis reporting 67.7% to 73.72% accuracy; 3 studies assessed the ability to diagnose periodontal disease from intraoral photographs with an accuracy between 47% and 81%, and 11 studies evaluated the performance of AI models for detecting alveolar bone loss from radiographic images reporting an accuracy between 73.4% and 99%.
CONCLUSIONS
AI models for periodontology applications are still in development but might provide a powerful diagnostic tool.
Topics: Humans; Dental Plaque; Alveolar Bone Loss; Artificial Intelligence; Periodontal Diseases; Gingivitis
PubMed: 35300850
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.026 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023To compare and report on the performance of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated using additive (AM) or subtractive (SM) manufacturing. (Review)
Review
AIM
To compare and report on the performance of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated using additive (AM) or subtractive (SM) manufacturing.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Epistemonikos, clinical trials registries) with a focused PICO question: In partially edentulous patients with missing single (or multiple) teeth undergoing dental implant therapy (P), do AM iFDPs (I) compared to SM iFDPs (C) result in improved clinical performance (O)? Included were studies comparing AM to SM iFDPs (randomized clinical trials, prospective/retrospective clinical studies, case series, in vitro studies).
RESULTS
Of 2'184 citations, no clinical study met the inclusion criteria, whereas six in vitro studies proved to be eligible. Due to the lack of clinical studies and considerable heterogeneity across the studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. AM iFDPs were made of zirconia and polymers. For SM iFDPs, zirconia, lithium disilicate, resin-modified ceramics and different types of polymer-based materials were used. Performance was evaluated by assessing marginal and internal discrepancies and mechanical properties (fracture loads, bending moments). Three of the included studies examined the marginal and internal discrepancies of interim or definitive iFDPs, while four examined mechanical properties. Based on marginal and internal discrepancies as well as the mechanical properties of AM and SM iFDPs, the studies revealed inconclusive results.
CONCLUSION
Despite the development of AM and the comprehensive search, there is very limited data available on the performance of AM iFDPs and their comparison to SM techniques. Therefore, the clinical performance of iFDPs by AM remains to be elucidated.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Dental Implants; Ceramics; Polymers
PubMed: 37750533
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14085 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2023The purpose of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of bisphosphonates (BPs) on the dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL).... (Review)
Review
The purpose of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of bisphosphonates (BPs) on the dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL). An electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, besides a meta-regression in order to verify how the log odds ratio (OR) was associated with follow-up time. The five- and ten-year estimated implant survivals were calculated. The review included 33 publications. Altogether, there were 1727 and 21,986 implants placed in patients taking and not taking BPs, respectively. A pairwise meta-analysis (26 studies) showed that implants in BP patients had a higher failure risk in comparison to non-BP patients (OR 1.653, = 0.047). There was an estimated decrease of 0.004 in log OR for every additional month of follow-up, although it was not significant ( = 0.259). The global estimated implant survival in patients taking BPs after 5 and 10 years was 94.2% (95% CI, 94.0-94.4) and 90.1% (95% CI, 89.8-90.3), respectively. It was not possible to make any reliable analysis concerning MBL, as only two studies reported MBL results separated by groups. There is a 65.3% higher risk of implant failure in patients taking BPs in comparison to patients not taking this class of drugs.
PubMed: 37763356
DOI: 10.3390/ma16186078 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Dec 2023Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may need dental implants to replace missing teeth. The data on implant failure in patients on antiresorptive medication requiring dental implants, is conflicting and limited. This systematic review aims to investigate if antiresorptive medications have any clinical impact on dental implant survival. Electronic databases were searched until May 2020. The focus question (PICOS): Participants: humans, Interventions: implant placement surgery in patients on antiresorptive medication, Comparisons: patients on antiresorptive medication vs control (patients not on antiresorptive medication), Outcomes: implant survival, and Study design: clinical studies. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020209083). Fourteen nonrandomized studies were selected for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-1 tool. Only studies with a control were included for the meta-analysis, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis using implant-level data, and 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis using patient-level data. There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups at the patient level based on 265 patients. However, there was a statistically significant difference at the implant level based on 2697 implants. Therefore, antiresorptive medications, mainly bisphosphonates (BPs), may significantly contribute to implant failure. Antiresorptive medications, especially BPs may reduce implant survival and impair the osseointegration of dental implants. Failed implants in patients on BPs may not lead to osteonecrosis and may be replaced with success.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Osteonecrosis; Osseointegration
PubMed: 37905745
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00160 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2024Overload from bruxism may affect survival of dental implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Overload from bruxism may affect survival of dental implants.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) in patients presenting with probable bruxism compared to non-bruxers. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021238397).
METHODS
An electronic search September 2022 in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Science Direct was combined with a hand search. Two independent reviewers carried out abstract screening, full-text assessment, quality assessment (National Institutes of Health tool) and data extraction. Only studies that provided information on self-report and clinical examination needed for the diagnosis of at least 'probable' bruxism were included. A pairwise random-effect meta-analysis was carried out.
RESULTS
In total 1338 studies were identified, and after screening and full-text assessment 27 studies that presented data on 2105 implants in probable bruxers and 10 264 implants in non-bruxers were included, with 138 and 352 implant failures in respective groups. the meta-analysis showed that implants placed in probable bruxers had a higher risk of failure than in non-bruxers (OR 2.189; 95% CI 1.337, 3.583, p = .002). A meta-regression showed that follow-up time did not affect this OR. Eighteen studies provided general data on MBL but did not report results separated between bruxers and non-bruxers. Therefore, an analysis of MBL was not possible.
CONCLUSION
The results of the present systematic review show that implants placed in probable bruxers present a significantly higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-bruxers. This should be considered in treatment planning and management of implant patients.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Bruxism; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Implantation, Endosseous
PubMed: 37589382
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13567 -
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 -
Dentistry Journal Sep 2023To compare the impact of immediate and delayed implant placement upon the survival of implants and to investigate the differences in implant survival between immediate... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To compare the impact of immediate and delayed implant placement upon the survival of implants and to investigate the differences in implant survival between immediate and delayed placement in adults.
METHODS
A search for the relevant literature was performed using the databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Scopus. The studies found were limited to publications between 2014 and 2022, written in the English language, peer-reviewed, and were randomised trials or comparative studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions appraisal tools and implant survival, and the primary outcome was meta-analysed using RevMan v.5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies were eligible for inclusion, including six randomised controlled trials and four non-randomised comparative studies. Five of the six randomised trials observed a low risk of bias, while the comparative studies had a moderate-to-serious risk of bias. The search strategy resulted in 341 implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sites (332 survived, 97.4%) and 359 implants inserted into delayed sites (350 survived, 97.5%).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the implant survival rates between immediately placed implants and implants placed using a delayed timing protocol (risk ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.96, 1.02, Z = 0.75, = 0.45). However, the detailed analysis showed that slightly more implant failures happened in the immediate dental implant placement group, with survival rates in some studies ranging between 90 and 95%, while the delayed placement group had survival rates of more than 95%.
PubMed: 37754338
DOI: 10.3390/dj11090218