-
BioMed Research International 2022In a society highly conscious of esthetics, prosthetic rehabilitation of lost teeth with tissue-integrated implants has gained wide acceptance and demand by patients and... (Review)
Review
In a society highly conscious of esthetics, prosthetic rehabilitation of lost teeth with tissue-integrated implants has gained wide acceptance and demand by patients and clinicians. The backbone of these tissue-integrated implants is the biotechnical process of osseointegration. Although the concept has been introduced and discussed for ages, the deepening knowledge about its cellular and molecular mechanisms has led the researchers to borrow further into the factors influencing the process of osseointegration. This has aided in the hastening and improving the process of osseointegration by exploiting several, even the minutest, details and events taking place in this natural process. Recently, due to the high esthetic expectations of the patients, the implants are being loaded immediately, which demands a high degree of implant stability. Implant stability, especially secondary stability, largely depends on bone formation and integration of implants to the osseous tissues. Various factors that influence the rate and success of osseointegration can either be categorized as those related to implant characteristics like the physical and chemical macro- and microdesign of implants or the bone characteristics like the amount and quality of bone and the local and systemic host conditions, or the time or protocol followed for the functional loading of the dental implant. To address the shortcomings in osseointegration due to any of the factors, it is mandatory that continuous and reliable monitoring of the status of osseointegration is done. This review attempts to encompass the mechanisms, factors affecting, and methods to assess osseointegration, followed by a discussion on the recent advances and future perspectives in dental implantology to enhance the process of osseointegration. The review was aimed at igniting the inquisitive minds to usher further the development of technology that enhances osseointegration.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Osseointegration; Osteogenesis; Tooth Loss; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35747499
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6170452 -
Journal of Periodontal Research Apr 2020Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease of hard and soft tissues around osseointegrated implants, followed by a progressive damage of alveolar bone. Oral... (Review)
Review
Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease of hard and soft tissues around osseointegrated implants, followed by a progressive damage of alveolar bone. Oral microorganisms can adhere to all types of surfaces by the production of multiple adhesive factors. Inherent properties of materials will influence not only the number of microorganisms, but also their profile and adhesion force onto the material surface. In this perspective, strategies to reduce the adhesion of pathogenic microorganisms on dental implants and their components should be investigated in modern rehabilitation concepts in implant dentistry. To date, several metallic nanoparticle films have been developed to reduce the growth of pathogenic bacteria. However, the main drawback in these approaches is the potential toxicity and accumulative effect of the metals over time. In view of biological issues and in attempt to prevent and/or treat peri-implantitis, biomaterials as carriers of antimicrobial substances have attracted special attention for application as coatings on dental implant devices. This review will focus on biomaterial-based possibilities to prevent and/or treat peri-implantitis by describing concepts and dental implant components suitable for engagement in preventing and treating this disease. Additionally, we raise important criteria referring to the geometric parameters of dental implants and their components, which can directly affect peri-implant tissue conditions. Finally, we overview currently available biomaterial systems that can be used in the field of oral implantology.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Bacterial Adhesion; Biocompatible Materials; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 31638267
DOI: 10.1111/jre.12707 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2023Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are growing in dental implant procedures. The current expansion and performance of AI models in implant dentistry applications...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are growing in dental implant procedures. The current expansion and performance of AI models in implant dentistry applications have not yet been systematically documented and analyzed.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the performance of AI models in implant dentistry for implant type recognition, implant success prediction by using patient risk factors and ontology criteria, and implant design optimization combining finite element analysis (FEA) calculations and AI models.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic systematic review was completed in 5 databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Peer-reviewed studies that developed AI models for implant type recognition, implant success prediction, and implant design optimization were included. The search strategy included articles published until February 21, 2021. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (nonrandomized experimental studies). A third investigator was consulted to resolve lack of consensus.
RESULTS
Seventeen articles were included: 7 investigations analyzed AI models for implant type recognition, 7 studies included AI prediction models for implant success forecast, and 3 studies evaluated AI models for optimization of implant designs. The AI models developed to recognize implant type by using periapical and panoramic images obtained an overall accuracy outcome ranging from 93.8% to 98%. The models to predict osteointegration success or implant success by using different input data varied among the studies, ranging from 62.4% to 80.5%. Finally, the studies that developed AI models to optimize implant designs seem to agree on the applicability of AI models to improve the design of dental implants. This improvement includes minimizing the stress at the implant-bone interface by 36.6% compared with the finite element model; optimizing the implant design porosity, length, and diameter to improve the finite element calculations; or accurately determining the elastic modulus of the implant-bone interface.
CONCLUSIONS
AI models for implant type recognition, implant success prediction, and implant design optimization have demonstrated great potential but are still in development. Additional studies are indispensable to the further development and assessment of the clinical performance of AI models for those implant dentistry applications reviewed.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Porosity
PubMed: 34144789
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.008 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2023Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the current systematic review was to answer the following PICO question: "In adult human subjects undergoing dental implant placement (P), is minimally invasive flapless computer-aided fully guided (either dynamic or static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP)) (I) superior to flapped conventional (free-handed implant placement (FHIP) or cast-based/drill partially guided implant placement (dPGIP)) surgery (C), in terms of efficacy, patient morbidity, long-term prognosis, and costs (O)?" Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PICO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, performed full-text analysis, extracted the data from the published reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. The study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses, which were based (wherever possible) on individual patient data (IPD). A total of 10 manuscripts reporting on five RCTs, involving a total of 124 participants and 449 implants, and comparing flapless sCAIP with flapped FHIP/cast-based partially guided implant placement (cPGIP), were included. There was no RCT analyzing flapless dynamic computer-aided implant placement (dCAIP) or flapped dPGIP. Intergroup meta-analyses indicated less depth deviation (difference in means (MD) = -0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.59 to 0.03; moderate certainty), angular deviation (MD = -3.88 degrees; 95% CI: -7.00 to -0.77; high certainty), coronal (MD = -0.6 mm; 95% CI: -1.21 to 0.01; low certainty) and apical (MD = -0.75 mm; 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.07; moderate certainty) three-dimensional bodily deviations, postoperative pain (MD = -17.09 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS); 95% CI: -33.38 to -0.80; low certainty), postoperative swelling (MD = -6.59 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -19.03 to 5.85; very low certainty), intraoperative discomfort (MD = -9.36 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -17.10 to -1.61) and surgery duration (MD = -24.28 minutes; 95% CI: -28.62 to -19.95) in flapless sCAIP than in flapped FHIP/cPGIP. Despite being more accurate than flapped FHIP/cPGIP, flapless sCAIP still resulted in deviations with respect to the planned position (intragroup meta-analytic means: 0.76 mm in depth, 2.57 degrees in angular, 1.43 mm in coronal, and 1.68 in apical three-dimensional bodily position). Moreover, flapless sCAIP presented a 12% group-specific intraoperative complication rate, resulting in an inability to place the implant with this protocol in 7% of cases. Evidence regarding more clinically relevant outcomes of efficacy (implant survival and success, prosthetically and biologically correct positioning), long-term prognosis, and costs, is currently scarce. When the objective is to guarantee minimal invasiveness at implant placement, clinicians could consider the use of flapless sCAIP. A proper case selection and consideration of a safety margin are, however, suggested.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 35906928
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12440 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Jan 2021To provide a contemporary and comprehensive overview of the hard and soft tissue biological structures surrounding an osseointegrated dental implant (peri-implant... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide a contemporary and comprehensive overview of the hard and soft tissue biological structures surrounding an osseointegrated dental implant (peri-implant referred to as the peri-implant phenotype), in the context of peri-implant esthetic complications.
OVERVIEW
The individual components of the peri-implant phenotype (keratinized mucosa width, mucosal thickness, supracrestal tissue height, and the peri-implant buccal bone) have been linked to different aspects of implant esthetics, as well as health-related aspects. At the time of implant therapy, respecting the biology of the peri-implant hard and soft tissues, and anticipating their remodeling patterns can alleviate future esthetic complications.
CONCLUSIONS
While the current literature may not allow for a point-by-point evidence based-recommendation for the required amount of each peri-implant structure, bearing in mind the proposed values for the components of the peri-implant phenotype, at the time of and prior to implant therapy can lead to more predictable treatment outcomes, and the avoidance of esthetic complications.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Knowledge of hard and soft tissue components surrounding and osseointegrated dental implant, and their underlying biological remodeling process is crucial for carrying out a successful therapy and alleviating possible future esthetic challenges.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Phenotype
PubMed: 33459483
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12709 -
Journal of Periodontology Oct 2019The incidence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a...
BACKGROUND
The incidence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a classification of these conditions has not yet been proposed. This lack in the literature may also lead to discrepancies in the reported treatment outcomes and thus misinform the clinician or the readers. The aim of the present article was therefore to present a classification of peri-implant PSTD at a single implant site.
METHODS
Four classes of PSTDs were discussed based on the position of the gingival margin of the implant-supported crown in relation to the homologous natural tooth. In addition, the bucco-lingual position of the implant head was also taken into consideration. Each class was further subdivided based on the height of the anatomical papillae.
RESULTS
Subsequently, for each respective category a surgical approach (including bilaminar techniques, the combined prosthetic-surgical approach or soft tissue augmentation with a submerged healing) was also suggested.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides a new classification system for describing PSTDs at single implant sites, with the appropriate recommended treatment protocol.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Esthetics, Dental; Tooth Crown; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31087334
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0616 -
International Journal of Implant... Nov 2021To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.
RESULTS
Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = - 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = - 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = - 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to - 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = - 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (- 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = - 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = - 11.11%; p = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS
Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Dental Implants; Humans; Mucositis; Peri-Implantitis; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34779939
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2023The macrogeometry of a dental implant plays a decisive role in its primary stability. A larger diameter, a conical shape, and a roughened surface increase the contact... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The macrogeometry of a dental implant plays a decisive role in its primary stability. A larger diameter, a conical shape, and a roughened surface increase the contact area of the implant with the surrounding bone and thus improve primary stability. This is considered the basis for successful implant osseointegration that different factors, such as implant design, can influence. This narrative review aims to critically review macro-geometric features affecting the primary stability of dental implants.
METHODS
For this review, a comprehensive literature search and review of relevant studies was conducted based on formulating a research question, searching the literature using keywords and electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to search for relevant studies. These studies were screened and selected, the study quality was assessed, data were extracted, the results were summarized, and conclusions were drawn.
RESULTS
The macrogeometry of a dental implant includes its surface characteristics, size, and shape, all of which play a critical role in its primary stability. At the time of placement, the initial stability of an implant is determined by its contact area with the surrounding bone. Larger diameter and a conical shape of an implant result in a larger contact area and better primary stability. But the linear relationship between implant length and primary stability ends at 12 mm.
CONCLUSIONS
Several factors must be considered when choosing the ideal implant geometry, including local factors such as the condition of the bone and soft tissues at the implant site and systemic and patient-specific factors such as osteoporosis, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases. These factors can affect the success of the implant procedure and the long-term stability of an implant. By considering these factors, the surgeon can ensure the greatest possible therapeutic success and minimize the risk of implant failure.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Osseointegration; Dental Prosthesis Design; Surgeons
PubMed: 37405709
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00485-z -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2022Dental implant therapy is a common clinical treatment for missing teeth. However, the esthetic result is not as satisfactory as expected in some cases, especially in the...
PURPOSE
Dental implant therapy is a common clinical treatment for missing teeth. However, the esthetic result is not as satisfactory as expected in some cases, especially in the anterior maxillary area. Poor esthetic results are caused by inadequate preparation of the hard and soft tissues in this area before treatment. The socket shield technique may be an alternative for a desirable esthetic outcome in dental implant treatments.
STUDY SELECTION
In the present systematic review, PubMed-Medline, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect were searched for clinical studies published from January 2000 to December 2018.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included, comprising one randomized controlled trial, two cohort studies, 14 clinical human case reports, and three retrospective case series. In total, 288 patients treated with the socket shield technique with immediate implant placement and follow-up between 3-60 months after placement were included. A quality assessment showed that 12 of the 20 included studies were of good quality. Twenty-six of the 274 (9.5%) cases developed complications or adverse effects related to the socket shield technique. Most studies reported implant survival without the complications (90.5%); most of the cases that were followed up for more than 12 months after implant placement achieved a good esthetic appearance. The failure rate was low without the complications, although there were some failures due to failed implant osseointegration, socket shield mobility and infection, socket shield exposure, socket shield migration, and apical root resorption.
CONCLUSIONS
The socket shield technique can be used in dental implant treatment, but it remains difficult to predict the long-term success of this technique until high-quality evidence becomes available.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33692284
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00054 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Models, Dental
PubMed: 35206217
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042026