-
Journal of Translational Medicine Sep 2022In the last decades, the ortho-aesthetic-functional rehabilitation had significant advances with the advent of implantology. Despite the success in implantology... (Review)
Review
In the last decades, the ortho-aesthetic-functional rehabilitation had significant advances with the advent of implantology. Despite the success in implantology surgeries, there is a percentage of failures mainly due to in loco infections, through bacterial proliferation, presence of fungi and biofilm formation, originating peri-implantitis. In this sense, several studies have been conducted since then, seeking answers to numerous questions that remain unknown. Thus, the present work aims to discuss the interaction between host-oral microbiome and the development of peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis was associated with a diversity of bacterial species, being Porphiromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola and Tannerella forsythia described in higher proportion of peri-implantitis samples. In a parallel role, the injury of peri-implant tissue causes an inflammatory response mediated by activation of innate immune cells such as macrophages, dendritic cells, mast cells, and neutrophils. In summary, the host immune system activation may lead to imbalance of oral microbiota, and, in turn, the oral microbiota dysbiosis is reported leading to cytokines, chemokines, prostaglandins, and proteolytic enzymes production. These biological processes may be responsible for implant loss.
Topics: Cytokines; Dental Implants; Humans; Microbiota; Peptide Hydrolases; Peri-Implantitis; Porphyromonas gingivalis; Prostaglandins
PubMed: 36138430
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03636-9 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2019Immediate loading of dental implants has gained widespread popularity because of its advantages in shortening treatment duration and improving esthetics and patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Immediate loading of dental implants has gained widespread popularity because of its advantages in shortening treatment duration and improving esthetics and patient acceptance. However, whether immediate loading can achieve clinical outcomes comparable with those of early or conventional delayed loading is still unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of immediate loading versus early or conventional loading implants in patients rehabilitated with fixed prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were supplemented by manual searches up to October 2018. Only human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate with early or conventional loading dental implants were included. Quality assessment was performed by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. For the meta-analysis, the dichotomous and continuous variables were pooled and analyzed by using risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The outcomes assessed included survival rate, marginal bone level changes, peri-implant gingival level, probing depth, and implant stability. The subgroup analyses included healing methods, implant time, occlusal contact, number of missing teeth, and tooth position.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine trials (49 articles) were included from the initial 763 references evaluated. When compared with conventional loading, with implants regarded as a statistical unit, a statistically significant lower survival rate was observed in the immediate loading dental implant (RR=0.974; 95% CI, 0.954, 0.994; P=.012). Regarding other outcomes, including marginal bone level changes, peri-implant gingival level, probing depth, and implant stability, no statistically significant differences were observed when comparing immediate versus early or conventional loading (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with early loading, immediate loading could achieve comparable implant survival rates and marginal bone level changes. Compared with conventional loading, immediate loading was associated with a higher incidence of implant failure.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 31421892
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.013 -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Feb 2022The growing resistance of bacteria to antimicrobial medicines is a global issue and a direct threat to human health. Despite this, antibiotic prophylaxis is often still... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The growing resistance of bacteria to antimicrobial medicines is a global issue and a direct threat to human health. Despite this, antibiotic prophylaxis is often still routinely used in dental implant surgery to prevent bacterial infection and early implant failure, despite unclear benefits. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to formulate clear clinical guidelines and therefore there is a need for well-designed, large-scale randomized controlled trials to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis.
PURPOSE
To compare the effect of a presurgical antibiotic regimen with an identical placebo regimen in healthy or relatively healthy patients receiving dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The 474 patients participating in the study were recruited from seven clinics in southern Sweden. We randomized the patients into a test and a placebo group; the study was conducted double-blinded. Preoperatively, the test group received 2 g of amoxicillin and the control group, identical placebo tablets. The primary outcome was implant failure; secondary outcomes were postoperative infections and adverse events. Patients were evaluated at two follow-ups: at 7-14 days and at 3-6 months.
RESULTS
Postoperative evaluations of the antibiotic (n = 238) and the placebo (n = 235) groups noted implant failures (antibiotic group: six patients, 2.5% and placebo group: seven patients, 3.0%) and postoperative infections (antibiotic group: two patients, 0.8% and placebo group: five patients, 2.1%). No patient reported any adverse events. Between-group differences in implant failures and postoperative infections were nonsignificant.
CONCLUSION
Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with implant placement is likely of small benefit and should thus be avoided in most cases, especially given the unabated growth in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT03412305.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 35075765
DOI: 10.1111/cid.13068 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2020Resolving late failure of dental implant is difficult and costly; however, only few reviews have addressed the risk factors associated with late failure of dental...
Resolving late failure of dental implant is difficult and costly; however, only few reviews have addressed the risk factors associated with late failure of dental implant. The aim of this literature review was to summarize the influences of different potential risk factors on the incidence of late dental implant failure. The protocol of this systematic review was prepared and implemented based on the PRISMA (Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guideline. In December 2018, studies published within the previous 10 years on late dental implant failure were selected by fulfilling the eligibility criteria and the risk factors identified in qualified studies were extracted by using a predefined extraction template. Fourteen eligible studies were assessed. The common risk factors for late failure were divided into three groups according to whether they were related to (1) the patient history (radiation therapy, periodontitis, bruxism and early implant failure), (2) clinical parameters (posterior implant location and bone grade 4) or (3) decisions made by the clinician (low initial stability, more than one implant placed during surgery, inflammation at the surgical site during the first year or using an overdenture with conus-type connection). Clinicians should be cautions throughout the treatment process of dental implant-from the initial examination to the treatment planning, surgical operation and prosthesis selection-in order to minimize the risk of late failure of dental implant.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Periodontitis; Research Design; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32498256
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17113931 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jan 2023The novel concept of immersive 3D augmented reality (AR) surgical navigation has recently been introduced in the medical field. This method allows surgeons to directly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The novel concept of immersive 3D augmented reality (AR) surgical navigation has recently been introduced in the medical field. This method allows surgeons to directly focus on the surgical objective without having to look at a separate monitor. In the dental field, the recently developed AR-assisted dental implant navigation system (AR navigation), which uses innovative image technology to directly visualize and track a presurgical plan over an actual surgical site, has attracted great interest.
OBJECTIVE
This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis study that aimed to assess the accuracy of dental implants placed by AR navigation and compare it with that of the widely used implant placement methods, including the freehand method (FH), template-based static guidance (TG), and conventional navigation (CN).
METHODS
Individual search strategies were used in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to search for articles published until March 21, 2022. This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. Peer-reviewed journal articles evaluating the positional deviations of dental implants placed using AR-assisted implant navigation systems were included. Cohen d statistical power analysis was used to investigate the effect size estimate and CIs of standardized mean differences (SMDs) between data sets.
RESULTS
Among the 425 articles retrieved, 15 articles were considered eligible for narrative review, 8 articles were considered for single-arm meta-analysis, and 4 were included in a 2-arm meta-analysis. The mean lateral, global, depth, and angular deviations of the dental implant placed using AR navigation were 0.90 (95% CI 0.78-1.02) mm, 1.18 (95% CI 0.95-1.41) mm, 0.78 (95% CI 0.48-1.08) mm, and 3.96° (95% CI 3.45°-4.48°), respectively. The accuracy of AR navigation was significantly higher than that of the FH method (SMD=-1.01; 95% CI -1.47 to -0.55; P<.001) and CN method (SMD=-0.46; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.29; P<.001). However, the accuracies of the AR navigation and TG methods were similar (SMD=0.06; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.74; P=.73).
CONCLUSIONS
The positional deviations of AR-navigated implant placements were within the safety zone, suggesting clinically acceptable accuracy of the AR navigation method. Moreover, the accuracy of AR implant navigation was comparable with that of the highly recommended dental implant-guided surgery method, TG, and superior to that of the conventional FH and CN methods. This review highlights the possibility of using AR navigation as an effective and accurate immersive surgical guide for dental implant placement.
Topics: Humans; Augmented Reality; Dental Implants; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Surgeons; Technology
PubMed: 36598798
DOI: 10.2196/42040 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jan 2022To assess the microbial effects of mechanical debridement in conjunction with a mouthrinse on sites with peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
To assess the microbial effects of mechanical debridement in conjunction with a mouthrinse on sites with peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eighty-nine patients with peri-implant mucositis were included in a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with mechanical debridement and 1-month use of either delmopinol, chlorhexidine (CHX), or a placebo mouthrinse. Submucosal and subgingival plaque samples of implants and teeth were collected at baseline and after 1 and 3 months, processed for 16S V4 rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and analysed bioinformatically.
RESULTS
The sites with peri-implant mucositis presented with a less diverse and less anaerobic microbiome. Exposure to delmopinol or CHX, but not to the placebo mouthrinse resulted in microbial changes after 1 month. The healthy sites around the teeth harboured a more diverse and more anaerobe-rich microbiome than the healthy sites around the implants.
CONCLUSIONS
Peri-implant sites with mucositis harbour ecologically less complex and less anaerobic biofilms with lower biomass than patient-matched dental sites with gingivitis while eliciting an equal inflammatory response. Adjunctive antimicrobial therapy in addition to mechanical debridement does affect both dental and peri-implant biofilm composition in the short term, resulting in a less dysbiotic subgingival biofilm.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Plaque; Humans; Microbiota; Mucositis; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34664294
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13566 -
Journal of Oral Science Oct 2021The recent literature on maxillary implant overdenture (IOD) was reviewed in order to clarify its predictability and establish treatment guidelines. Electronic searches... (Review)
Review
The recent literature on maxillary implant overdenture (IOD) was reviewed in order to clarify its predictability and establish treatment guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, and articles about maxillary IOD written after 1990 were reviewed, focusing on the following items: I. implant survival rate, II. maxillary IOD survival rate, III. number of implants, IV. attachment type, V. follow-up period, VI. implant system, and VII. opposing dentition. The review revealed an implant survival rate of 61-100% and an overdenture survival rate of 72.4-100%. The attachments used included bars, balls, locators, and telescope crowns. The minimum and maximum observation periods were 12 months and 120 months, respectively, and the number of implants used for supporting IOD ranged from 2 to 8. At present, there is no strong evidence to indicate that maxillary IOD is clearly superior for all the items examined. However, the existing data indicate that maxillary IOD has almost the same therapeutic effect as fixed implant superstructures, and is a treatment option that can be actively adopted for patients in whom fixed superstructures cannot be applied for various reasons.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Maxilla
PubMed: 34408111
DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.21-0087 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2021The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.
RESULTS
The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.
CONCLUSIONS
Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.
Topics: Dental Implants; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 34145925
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13798 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Oct 2021This systematic review assesses dental implant survival, calculates the incidence rate of osteoradionecrosis, and evaluates risk factors in irradiated head and neck... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review assesses dental implant survival, calculates the incidence rate of osteoradionecrosis, and evaluates risk factors in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Various databases (e.g., Medline/Embase using Ovid) and gray literature platforms were searched using a combination of keywords and subject headings. When appropriate, meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model. Otherwise, pooled analysis was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 425 of the 660 included patients received radiotherapy. In total, 2602 dental implants were placed, and 1637 were placed in irradiated patients. Implant survival after an average follow-up of 37.7 months was 97% (5% confidence interval, CI 95.2%, 95% CI 98.3%) in nonirradiated patients and 91.9% (5% CI 87.7%, 95% CI: 95.3%) after an average follow-up of 39.8 months in irradiated patients. Osteoradionecrosis occurred in 11 cases, leading to an incidence of 3% (5% CI 1.6%, 95% CI 4.9%). The main factors impacting implant survival were radiation and grafting status, while factors influencing osteoradionecrosis could not be determined using meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Our data show that implant survival in irradiated patients is lower than in nonirradiated patients, and osteoradionecrosis is-while rare-a serious complication that any OMF surgeon should be prepared for. The key to success could be a standardized patient selection and therapy to improve the standard of care, reduce risks and shorten treatment time.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Our analysis provides further evidence that implant placement is a feasible treatment option in irradiated head and neck cancer patients with diminished oral function and good long-term cancer prognosis.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Osteoradionecrosis
PubMed: 34401944
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04065-6 -
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