-
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 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2015Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However,...
AIMS
Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are--in contrast to periodontitis--at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis.
METHODS
Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants.
RESULTS
Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS
Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal.
Topics: Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Dental Plaque; Humans; Oral Hygiene; Peri-Implantitis; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontal Index; Primary Prevention; Risk Factors; Smoking; Stomatitis; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 25626479
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12369 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2021After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead to implant failure leading to peri-implantitis and loss of supporting bone, which may eventually lead to failure of implant. Surface chemistry of the implant and lack of cleanliness on the part of the patient are related to peri-implantitis. The only way to get rid of this infection is decontamination of dental implants.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review intended to study decontamination of microbial biofilm methods on titanium implant surfaces used in dentistry.
METHODS
The electronic databases Springer Link, Science Direct, and PubMed were explored from their inception until December 2020 to identify relevant studies. Studies included had to evaluate the efficiency of new strategies either to prevent formation of biofilm or to treat matured biofilm on dental implant surfaces.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this systematic review, 17 different groups of decontamination methods were summarized from 116 studies. The decontamination methods included coating materials, mechanical cleaning, laser treatment, photodynamic therapy, air polishing, anodizing treatment, radiation, sonication, thermal treatment, ultrasound treatment, chemical treatment, electrochemical treatment, antimicrobial drugs, argon treatment, and probiotics.
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that most of the decontamination methods were effective in preventing the formation of biofilm and in decontaminating established biofilm on dental implants. This narrative review provides a summary of methods for future research in the development of new dental implants and decontamination techniques.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Biofilms; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34692562
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.736186 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Sep 2016To analyze articles that studied patients submitted to diphosphonates therapy and who received dental implants before, during or after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To analyze articles that studied patients submitted to diphosphonates therapy and who received dental implants before, during or after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, compared to healthy patients, analyzing the increase of failure and loss of implants or bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) incidence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. The clinical question in "PICO" format was: In patients under bisphosphonate therapy, do dental implants placement, compared to healthy patients, increase the failure and loss of implants or bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence? PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for articles published up until April 15, 2015 using a combination of MeSH terms and their Entry terms.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 375 articles. After selection according to the eligibility criteria, 15 studies fulfilled were included (eight retrospective, one prospective and six case series), with a total of 1339 patients analyzed, 3748 implants placed, 152 loss of implants and 78 cases of BRONJ.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of randomized clinical trials looking at this theme, further studies with longer follow-up are needed to elucidate the remaining questions. Thus, it is wise to be careful when planning dental implant surgery in patients undergoing bisphosphonate therapy because of the risk of developing BRONJ as well as occurring failure of implant. Moreover, complete systemic condition of the patient must be also taking into considering when such procedures are performed.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 27475681
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20920 -
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 -
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 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Aug 2022The aim of this systematic review is to analyze literature regarding the relationship between the implant-abutment emergence angle (EA) and implant emergence profile... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT
The aim of this systematic review is to analyze literature regarding the relationship between the implant-abutment emergence angle (EA) and implant emergence profile (EP) and the prevalence of peri-implantitis.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from initiation up to April 2022. Studies describing the EA and EP in association with peri-implantitis were considered eligible for this review and selected for inclusion in this review if implant groups with wide and narrow EA and different EP types were described.
RESULTS
Searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library led to 1116 unique titles and the inclusion of three studies. These concerned 168-349 implants. Two studies presented the mean prevalence of peri-implantitis which was 16.7% and 24.8% at the implant level. Both studies showed a significant relationship between peri-implantitis in bone-level implant groups with an EA above 30° compared to implants with an EA below 30°. A third study presented marginal bone loss which tended to be smaller when the EA was around 20°-40°. In one of the three included studies, the prevalence of peri-implantitis was significantly higher if implants had a convex EP compared to a concave or straight EP. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with a convex EP compared to other EP types, if combined with an EA above 30°.
CONCLUSIONS
Three eligible studies were found. Reported associations should therefore be considered with caution. Synthesis suggests an association between a larger EA (>30°) and a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis or marginal bone loss compared to a smaller EA (<30°). A convex EP may also be associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. However, causality remains a question.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 35713938
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.594 -
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 Oral Investigations Dec 2021The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether intraoral scanning (IOS) is able to reduce working time and improve patient-reported outcome measures... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether intraoral scanning (IOS) is able to reduce working time and improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to conventional impression (CI) techniques, taking into account the size of the scanned area. The secondary aim was to verify the effectiveness of IOS procedures based on available prosthodontic outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the outcomes of IOS and CI performed during the treatment of partially and complete edentulous patients for tooth- or implant-supported restorations. Qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the time efficiency and PROMs produced by the two different techniques. Clinical prosthodontic outcomes were analyzed among the included studies when available.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (9 randomized controlled trials and 8 prospective clinical studies) were selected for qualitative synthesis. The 17 included studies provided data from 430 IOS and 370 CI performed in 437 patients. A total of 7 different IOS systems and their various updated versions were used for digital impressions. The results demonstrated that IOS was overall faster than CI independent of whether quadrant or complete-arch scanning was utilized, regardless of the nature of the restoration (tooth or implant supported). IOS was generally preferred over CI regardless of the size of the scanned area and nature of the restoration (tooth- or implant-supported). Similar prosthodontic outcomes were reported for workflows implementing CI and IOS.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this systematic review, IOS is faster than CI, independent of whether a quadrant or complete arch scan is conducted. IOS can improve the patient experience measured by overall preference and comfort and is able to provide reliable prosthodontic outcomes.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Reduced procedure working time associated with the use of IOS can improve clinical efficiency and the patient experience during impression procedures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an essential component of evidence-based dental practice as they allow the evaluation of therapeutic modalities from the perspective of the patient. IOS is generally preferred by patients over conventional impressions.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Patient Comfort; Prospective Studies; Prosthodontics
PubMed: 34568955
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04157-3 -
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