Search

OBJECTIVES To assess, retrospectively, whether older age has an impact on implant osseointegration when compared with younger age. METHODS All patients ≥65 years old at implant installation, in an university setting over a time-period of 11.5 years, with complete anamnestic data and follow-up until prosthetic restoration were included, and any early implant loss (EIL; i.e. lack of osseointegration prior to or at the time-point of prosthetic restoration) was recorded. Further, one implant, from each of the elderly patients, was attempted matched to one implant in a younger patient (35 to

Background Resolution and prevention of peri‐implant mucositis are a key in preventing peri‐implantitis. This case–control study aims to assess the modifying effect of a deep mucosal tunnel (DMT) on the induction and resolution phases of experimental peri‐implant mucositis. Methods Nineteen subjects with a tissue level implant were assigned to cases (DMT, depth ≥3 mm) or controls (shallow mucosal tunnel ≤1 mm, SMT). Subjects underwent a standard experimental peri‐implant mucositis protocol characterized by an oral hygiene optimization phase, a 3‐week induction phase using an acrylic stent to prevent self‐performed oral hygiene at the experimental implant, and a 3 + 2 weeks resolution phase. Modified plaque (mPI), gingival index (mGI) and peri‐implant sulcus fluid IL‐1β concentrations were measured over time. Differences between DMT and SMT were assessed with the Mann–Whitney test. Results Modified plaque index and mGI increased in parallel during the induction phase. After resumption of oral hygiene practice, mPI and mGI resolved towards baseline values in the SMT group. In DMT, mPI and mGI values diverged: plaque resolved but resolution of inflammation was delayed and of smaller magnitude during the first 3 weeks after resumption of oral hygiene. IL‐1β concentrations were significantly higher in DMT at 21 days (end of induction) and during the resolution phase corroborating the clinical findings. Removal of the crown and submucosal professional cleaning were needed to revert mGI to baseline values in DMT implants. Conclusions The depth of the mucosal tunnel modifies the resolution of experimental peri‐implant mucositis at transmucosal implants. This observation raises important questions on the effectiveness of self‐performed oral hygiene in cases where implants are placed deeper and the ability to resolve mucositis and effectively prevent peri‐implantitis in such situations.

OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes of PRF administration for bone regeneration and implant therapy? METHOD A systematic literature search comprised three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane followed by a hand search of relevant scientific journals. Human studies using PRF for bone regeneration and implant therapy were considered and articles published up to December 31, 2017 were included. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included. RESULTS In total, 5,963 titles were identified with the search terms and by hand search. A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT) met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for data extraction. Included studies focused on alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, osseointegration process, soft tissue management, bone augmentation, bone regeneration after sinus floor elevation and surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate or unclear. Nine studies showed superior outcomes for PRF for any of the evaluated variables, such as ridge dimension, bone regeneration, osseointegration process, soft tissue healing. Three studies failed to show any beneficial effects of PRF. No meta-analysis could be performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs. CONCLUSIONS There is moderate evidence supporting the clinical benefit of PRF on ridge preservation and in the early phase of osseointegration. It remains unclear whether PRF can reduce pain and improve soft tissue healing. More research support is necessary to comment on the role of PRF to improve other implant therapy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The task of this working group was to update the knowledge about the use of drugs and biologicals affecting healing of soft tissue and bone during implant treatment or procedures associated with it. Moreover, the impact of titanium particles and biocorrosion on complications and implant survival has been analysed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature in the areas of interest (platelet concentrates, antiresorptive drugs as well as implant-host interaction) was screened using systematic reviews for the former two areas, whereas a narrative critical review was performed for the latter topic. Two manuscripts on platelet concentrates, one manuscript on antiresorptive drugs and one manuscript on the effects of biocorrosion, were presented for group analysis with subsequent discussion in the plenum and final consensus approval. RESULTS: Results and conclusions of the individual reviews of the three topics are presented in the respective papers. Conclusions of the group on strengths and weaknesses of available evidence as well as consensus statements and directions for further research are provided in this study. The following papers were subject to group discussions and formed the basis for the consensus statements: Stähli A, Strauss FJ, Gruber R. () The use of platelet-rich-plasma to enhance the outcomes of implant-related therapies: a systematic review Strauss FJ, Stähli A, Gruber R. (2018) The use of platelet-rich-fibrin to enhance the outcomes of implant-related therapies: a systematic review Mombelli A, Hashim D, Cionca N. () What is the impact of titanium particles and bio-corrosion on implant survival and complications? A critical review Stavropoulos A, Bertl K, Pietschmann P, Pandis N, Morten Schiødt, Klinge B. () The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: a systematic review. ispartof: CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH vol:29 pages:93-99 ispartof: location:SWITZERLAND, Pfaffikon status: published

Aim To analyse the effect of Leucocyte- and Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) on bone regeneration procedures and osseointegration. Materials and Methods An electronic and hand search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Only randomised clinical trials, written in English where L-PRF was applied in bone regeneration and implant procedures, were selected. No follow-up restrictions were applied. Results A total of 14 articles were included and processed. Three subgroups were created depending on the application: sinus floor elevation (SFE), alveolar ridge preservation, and implant therapy. In SFE, for a lateral window as well as for the trans-alveolar technique, histologically faster bone healing was reported when L-PRF was added to most common xenografts. L-PRF alone improved the preservation of the alveolar width, resulting in less buccal bone resorption compared to natural healing. In implant therapy, better implant stability over time and less marginal bone loss were observed when L-PRF was applied. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data. Conclusions Despite the lack of strong evidence found in this systematic review, L-PRF might have a positive effect on bone regeneration and osseointegration. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Objective: To compare a four-and six-implant maxillary overdenture after an observation period of 5 years.Material and methods: Fifty subjects with functional problems concerning their maxillary denture, who had ample bone volume in the anterior region to place four or six implants, were included and randomly assigned to either group. Implant and overdenture survival, clinical performance, marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction were assessed.Results: Forty-six patients completed the 5-year follow-up. One implant failed in the six implants group (99.2% survival) and none in the four implants group (100% survival). No overdentures had to be replaced during the observation period and the number of complications was limited. Clinical function was good, with no difference in clinical parameters between the groups. Mean marginal bone resorption was 0.50 +/- 0.37 and 0.52 +/- 0.43 mmin the four and six implant group respectively.Conclusion: In patients with functional complaints of their maxillary denture, bar-supported overdentures on four implants in the anterior maxillary region were not inferior to overdentures supported by six implants after 5 years of function. Implant survival and patient satisfaction were high, clinical parameters favourable, bone loss and complications to the denture were minor in both groups (Clinical trial registration number: NTR2969).