Search

Objectives To evaluate clinical, radiographic, microbiologic, and biomechanical parameters related to bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon (EH) and Morse-taper (MT) connections. Materials and Methods Twelve totally edentulous patients received four custom-made implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible. Two of those implants had the same macroscopic design, but different prosthetic connections. All patients received an immediate implant-supported prosthesis. Clinical parameters (periimplant probing pocket depth (PPD), modified gingival index (mGI), and mucosal thickness (MTh)) were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. The distance between the top of the implant and the first bone-to-implant contact (IT-FBIC) was evaluated on standardized digital peri-apical radiographs acquired at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Samples of the subgingival microbiota were collected 1, 3, and 6 months after implant loading and used for the quantification of Tanerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggragatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Further, 36 computerized-tomography based finite element (FE) models were accomplished, simulating each patient under three loading conditions. Results The evaluated clinical parameters were equal for EH and MT implants. Mean IT-FBIC was significantly different between the tested connections (1.17 ± 0.44 mm for EH, and 0.17 ± 0.54 mm for MT, considering all evaluated time periods). No significant microbiological differences could be observed between tested connections. FE analysis showed a significantly higher peak of equivalent (EQV) strain (p = 0.005) for EH (mean 3,438.65 µe) compared to MT (mean 840.98 µe) connection. Conclusions Radiographic periimplant bone loss depends on the implant connection type. MT connections showed less periimplant bone loss, compared to EH connections.

Background and Purpose Osteoporosis is a major skeletal disease affecting millions of people worldwide. Recent studies claim that patients with osteoporosis do not have a higher risk of early implant failure compared to non-osteoporotic patients. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of skeletal osteoporosis and local bone density on initial dental implant stability. Materials and Methods Seventy-three patients were recruited and were assigned (based on a Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry scan) to either the osteoporosis (Opr), osteopenia (Opn), or control (C) group. Forty nine of the 73 patients received dental implants and had implant stability measured by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at implant placement and at prosthetic abutment placement. On the computerized tomography scans, the cortical thickness and the bone density (Hounsfield Units) at the sites of implant placement were measured. Results At implant placement, primary stability was on average lower in group Opr (63.3 ± 10.3 ISQ) than in group Opn (65.3 ± 7.5 implant stability qutient (ISQ)), and group C (66.7 ± 8.7 ISQ). At abutment placement, a similar trend was observed: group Opr (66.4 ± 9.5 ISQ) scored lower than group Opn (70.7 ± 7.8 ISQ), while the highest average was for group C (72.2 ± 7.2 ISQ). The difference between groups Opr and C was significant. Implant length and diameter did not have a significant effect on implant stability as measured with RFA. A significant correlation was found between local bone density and implant stability for all regions of interest. Conclusions Implant stability seems to be influenced by both local and skeletal bone densities. The lower stability scores in patient with skeletal osteoporosis reinforce the recommendations that safe protocols and longer healing times could be recommended when treating those patients with dental implants.

Background and Purpose Osteoporosis is a disease affecting more than 300 million people worldwide and is responsible for numerous medical complications. This study aimed to investigate the relation between skeletal and maxillary bone density. Materials and Methods Seventy-three patients were recruited and divided between group A (osteoporosis), group B (healthy, control), and group C (osteopenia) on the basis of a dual-energy x-ray absorptiomery (DXA) scan. These patients also received a CT scan on which bone density measurements were performed at five sites: maxilla midline, retromolar tuberosities, incisor, premolars, and molar regions. Results The bone density was lower in osteoporotic patients compared with the control patients. The bone mineral density (BMD) of the tuberosities showed the strongest correlations with the BMD of the hip and the spine (respectively, r = 0.50 and r = 0.61). The midline region showed moderate correlations with the hip (r = 0.47) and the spine (r = 0.46). For potential implant sites, the correlations with the BMD of the hip and spine were, however, small to insignificant. Based on measurements of bone density of the maxilla, it was possible to predict if the patient was osteoporotic or not with a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 83%. Conclusions The maxillary bone density of subjects with osteoporosis is significantly lower than that of healthy patients. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between the density of the skeleton and the density of some sites of the maxilla. Using measurements of maxillary bone density in order to predict skeletal bone density might be a useful tool for the screening of osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a major skeletal disease affecting millions of people worldwide. Recent studies claim that patients with osteoporosis do not have a higher risk of early implant failure compared to non-osteoporotic patients. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of skeletal osteoporosis and local bone density on initial dental implant stability.Seventy-three patients were recruited and were assigned (based on a Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry scan) to either the osteoporosis (Opr), osteopenia (Opn), or control (C) group. Forty nine of the 73 patients received dental implants and had implant stability measured by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at implant placement and at prosthetic abutment placement. On the computerized tomography scans, the cortical thickness and the bone density (Hounsfield Units) at the sites of implant placement were measured.At implant placement, primary stability was on average lower in group Opr (63.3 ± 10.3 ISQ) than in group Opn (65.3 ± 7.5 implant stability qutient (ISQ)), and group C (66.7 ± 8.7 ISQ). At abutment placement, a similar trend was observed: group Opr (66.4 ± 9.5 ISQ) scored lower than group Opn (70.7 ± 7.8 ISQ), while the highest average was for group C (72.2 ± 7.2 ISQ). The difference between groups Opr and C was significant. Implant length and diameter did not have a significant effect on implant stability as measured with RFA. A significant correlation was found between local bone density and implant stability for all regions of interest.Implant stability seems to be influenced by both local and skeletal bone densities. The lower stability scores in patient with skeletal osteoporosis reinforce the recommendations that safe protocols and longer healing times could be recommended when treating those patients with dental implants.

To evaluate clinical, radiographic, microbiologic, and biomechanical parameters related to bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon (EH) and Morse-taper (MT) connections.Twelve totally edentulous patients received four custom-made implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible. Two of those implants had the same macroscopic design, but different prosthetic connections. All patients received an immediate implant-supported prosthesis. Clinical parameters (periimplant probing pocket depth (PPD), modified gingival index (mGI), and mucosal thickness (MTh)) were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. The distance between the top of the implant and the first bone-to-implant contact (IT-FBIC) was evaluated on standardized digital peri-apical radiographs acquired at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Samples of the subgingival microbiota were collected 1, 3, and 6 months after implant loading and used for the quantification of Tanerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggragatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Further, 36 computerized-tomography based finite element (FE) models were accomplished, simulating each patient under three loading conditions.The evaluated clinical parameters were equal for EH and MT implants. Mean IT-FBIC was significantly different between the tested connections (1.17 ± 0.44 mm for EH, and 0.17 ± 0.54 mm for MT, considering all evaluated time periods). No significant microbiological differences could be observed between tested connections. FE analysis showed a significantly higher peak of equivalent (EQV) strain (p = 0.005) for EH (mean 3,438.65 µε) compared to MT (mean 840.98 µε) connection.Radiographic periimplant bone loss depends on the implant connection type. MT connections showed less periimplant bone loss, compared to EH connections.

To investigate dentist- as well as patient-centered outcomes of the implant-supported cone-anchored removable prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla over 5 years.Ten patients, edentulous in the maxilla, received six Ti implants after which they were delayed loaded through a cone-anchored removable prosthesis. Clinical parameters such as plaque and bleeding indices, PTV, implant success, marginal bone loss, device and prosthesis complications, and patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale) were collected at follow-up visits scheduled 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months postprosthesis delivery.After at least 5 years of follow-up (mean: 63.7 months), 53/59 implants were rated successful, while two of 59 failed and one implant was kept sleeping. Mean marginal bone loss from prosthesis delivery until 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, was; 0.15 (SD: 0.87), 0.36 (SD: 1.07), and 0.60 mm (SD: 1.12). The mean Periotest® values at baseline and 5 years did not differ significantly. After 1 year, a significant improvement in patient satisfaction was recorded compared with the old denture, and this remained stable over the 5-year period.Cone-anchored removable dental prostheses retained by secondary splinted implants offer a safe alternative for patients with an edentulous maxilla in need of more comfort. Dentist- as well as patient-centered outcomes compete with reports using other prosthetic anchoring devices. Larger replica studies are encouraged to further validate this concept.

Background: The anterior mandible is generally considered a rather safe surgical area, involving few risks of damage to vital anatomic structures. Nevertheless, both neurosensory disturbances and hemorrhages have been reported after implant surgery in that particular area. Purpose: With the increasing demand for oral implant placement, the anatomy of the anterior mandible should receive more attention. This review will focus on the anatomic peculiarities of the anterior mandible and the related clinical implications. Methods: The scientific evidence on the anatomic, histologic, physiologic, and clinical aspects of the neurovascularization of the anterior mandible will be reviewed. Results: Surgical complications may be attributed to the existence of a mandibular incisive canal with a true neurovascular supply. Potential risks may also be related to the presence of the lingual foramen and anatomic variations, such as an anterior looping of the mental nerve. Conclusions: Preoperative radiographic planning for oral implant placement in the anterior mandible should therefore not only consider all esthetic and functional demands but should also pay particular attention to the anatomic peculiarities of this region to avoid any neurovascular complications.

Background: As the use of oral implants for the treatment of partially as well as fully edentulous patients has increased the past two decades, more specialized radiographie techniques have become available for the preoperative planning of oral implant placement. Purpose: The goal of this article was to enable clinicians to select the appropriate imaging techniques when planning for oral implants. Materials and Methods: This article reviews the available literature about various imaging techniques and their indication for the preoperative planning of oral implants. The advantages and drawbacks of each technique are described. A dosimet-ric overview is given relative to different radiologie techniques used in various clinical situations. Results: For preoperative planning of implant placement, advantages and drawbacks of the available imaging techniques have been considered, which allows guidelines for image technique selection to be formulated based on the clinical situation provided, considering the diagnostic yield of each technique and the radiation doses involved. Conclusions: From the available literature, it can be stated that many clinical situations demand the use of cross-sectional imaging techniques for optimal preoperative planning of implant placement. Nevertheless, such techniques are not required in cases in which the clinical examination reveals sufficient bone width and where standard radiographie examinations, such as intraoral and panoramic radiography, reveal adequate bone height and space for implant placement.

Osteoporosis is a disease affecting more than 300 million people worldwide and is responsible for numerous medical complications. This study aimed to investigate the relation between skeletal and maxillary bone density.Seventy-three patients were recruited and divided between group A (osteoporosis), group B (healthy, control), and group C (osteopenia) on the basis of a dual-energy x-ray absorptiomery (DXA) scan. These patients also received a CT scan on which bone density measurements were performed at five sites: maxilla midline, retromolar tuberosities, incisor, premolars, and molar regions.The bone density was lower in osteoporotic patients compared with the control patients. The bone mineral density (BMD) of the tuberosities showed the strongest correlations with the BMD of the hip and the spine (respectively, r = 0.50 and r = 0.61). The midline region showed moderate correlations with the hip (r = 0.47) and the spine (r = 0.46). For potential implant sites, the correlations with the BMD of the hip and spine were, however, small to insignificant. Based on measurements of bone density of the maxilla, it was possible to predict if the patient was osteoporotic or not with a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 83%.The maxillary bone density of subjects with osteoporosis is significantly lower than that of healthy patients. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between the density of the skeleton and the density of some sites of the maxilla. Using measurements of maxillary bone density in order to predict skeletal bone density might be a useful tool for the screening of osteoporosis.

This in vivo split-mouth randomized controlled trial compared a synthetic bone substitute with a bovine bone mineral to cover bone dehiscences after implant insertion.Fourteen patients received four to six implants to support an overdenture. Two comparable dehiscences within the same patient were first covered with a layer of autogenous bone, followed by a layer of either Bio-Oss® (group 1; Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) or Straumann BoneCeramic® (group 2; Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) and sealed by a resorbable membrane. The change in vertical dimension of the defect was measured at implant placement and at abutment connection (6.5 months). Clinical and radiological parameters were evaluated up to 1 year of loading.The vertical size of the defect at surgery was 6.4 ± 1.6 mm for group 1 and 6.4 ± 2.2 mm for group 2 sites, measured from the implant shoulder. After 6.5 months, the depth of the defect was reduced to 1.5 ± 1.2 mm and 1.9 ± 1.2 mm for group 1 and group 2 sites, respectively (p0.05). No implants failed during follow-up. Mean marginal bone loss over the SLActive surface was 0.94 mm (group 1), 0.81 mm (group 2), and 0.93 mm (group 3, no dehiscence) after 1 year of loading.Both bone substitutes behaved equally effectively.

Background: The original protocol or Branemark to achieve predictable osseointegration for oral implants has substantially been modified. One may question whether results are influenced by those modifications, especially for the longterm prognosis. Purpose: The goal of the present study was to investigate the impact of those parameters that deviate from the original protocol as defined by P-I Branemark. Materials and Methods: In this study, 246 patients with 263 fixed partial prostheses supported by 668 Branemark implants were followed from 1 to 15 years (mean:6.3 yr). Radiographs were taken at the time of abutment connection, at 3 to 6 months, at 12 months, and then every 3 years. The bone level was rated mesially and distally from the implants on a total of 2588 radiographs. Results: A positive relation between abutment length and marginal bone level was found (p >.0001). The maxilla (p =.03), porcelain (p =.007), long abutments (p =.008), and regular-sized diameter implants (p =.001) all exhibited more bone loss in the first 6 months. After 6 months, only long implants showed more bone loss (p =.03). Conclusions: Overall, the marginal bone level remained stable around Branemark implants, never surpassing 2.2 mm, even after 15 years. Although longer implants lost more bone over time, this has to be interpreted with respect to higher resorption rates in less resorbed jaws.

Background: The replacement of a single tooth or several teeth by means of single-implant restorations is an increasingly used method that needs long-term validation. Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the outcome of single-implant restorations by means of fixed restorations and to define the prognosis through marginal bone level estimations. Materials and Methods: From November 1986 to June 1998, 270 Branemark implants (215 in the upper jaw) were installed in 219 patients (106 males). Both anterior and posterior sites were involved. Of the 263 single restorations, 28 were placed in private dental offices. The patients were followed until June 1999. Results: Twelve implants failed before or at abutment connection or within 6 months afterward. Only four implants failed later. The cumulative success rates were 93% for the implants and 96.5% for the restorations over a period of 11 years. The marginal bone loss during the first 6 months after abutment connection reached 0.71 mm and then dropped to 0.036 mm annually over a period of 10 years. Conclusions: Single-implant restorations (Branemark System) are a reliable treatment with a good long-term prognosis. Failures were concentrated during the healing period and early loading phase.