Is transmucosal healing of an implant as effective as submerged healing when simultaneous guided bone regeneration is performed? A preclinical study.

AIM: To investigate whether transmucosal healing is as effective as submerged healing in terms of buccal bone regeneration when guided bone regeneration (GBR) is performed simultaneously with implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six dogs, buccal dehiscence defects were created in the edentulous mandibular ridge, sized 5 × 5 × 3 mm (length × height × depth). In each defect, a bone-level implant was placed, and four experimental groups were randomly assigned as follows: (i) transmucosal healing with GBR (T-GBR), (ii) transmucosal healing without GBR (T-control), (iii) submerged healing with GBR (S-GBR) and (iv) submerged healing without GBR (S-control). Data analyses were based on histological slides 5 months after implant placement. RESULTS: The T-GBR group showed significant differences compared to the control groups regarding defect height resolution, buccal bone thickness and mineralized tissue area (p < .05), but showed no significant differences when compared with the S-GBR group (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The mode of healing (transmucosal vs. submerged) does not influence bone regeneration at implant sites. The clinician may therefore choose the approach based on further clinical and patient-specific parameters.

Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10-mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading.

AIM: To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses. RESULTS: Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5-year survival rates for ≤6-mm and ≥10-mm implants in non-augmented bone and full-mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6-mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5-year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4-mm and 5-mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short- and long-term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5-year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10-mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full-arch rehabilitation, and 6-mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

Randomized controlled multi-centre study comparing shorter dental implants (6 mm) to longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 10-year data.

AIM: To compare implant survival and complication rates between shorter and standard-length implants with sinus augmentation and restored with single crowns, at 10 years of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred and one patients (137 implants) with a ridge height of 5-7 mm in the posterior maxilla were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: shorter implants (6 mm) (group short [GS]) or standard-length implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (group graft [GG]). Following the insertion of final restorations, patients were regularly recalled for up to 10 years. Assessed outcomes encompassed implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Non-parametric statistical analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For the 5- to 10-year follow-up period, 77 patients with 105 implants (GS: 36 patients/48 implants; GG: 41/57) were available for re-examination (drop-out rate 21%). Implant survival rates at the patient level were 96.0% (GS; 2 failures) and 100% (GG) (inter-group p = .24). Median MBLs amounted to 0.00 mm (min 0.00; max 3.25; GS) and 0.00 mm (min 0.00; max 4.55; GG) (inter-group p = .73). Technical complications predominantly occurred within the first 5 years (inter-group p > .05). Peri-implantitis rates were 4.2% (GS) and 13.3% (GG) (intergroup p = .37). Median OHIP-49 scores were 7.00 (0.00; 39.00; GS) and 9.00 (0.00; 196; GG) (inter-group p = .61) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on similar 10-year implant survival rates, reduced patient morbidity and lower costs, the use of shorter dental implants might well serve as an alternative treatment concept to longer implants placed in conjunction with sinus grafting for patients with a limited ridge height in the posterior maxilla. Study register: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01030523.

Molecular mechanisms of poor osseointegration in irradiated bone: In vivo study in a rat tibia model.

AIM: Radiotherapy is associated with cell depletion and loss of blood supply, which are linked to compromised bone healing. However, the molecular events underlying these effects at the tissue-implant interface have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to determine the major molecular mediators associated with compromised osseointegration due to previous exposure to radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Titanium implants were placed in rat tibiae with or without pre-exposure to 20 Gy irradiation. Histomorphometric, biomechanical, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analyses were performed at 1 and 4 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: The detrimental effects of irradiation were characterized by reduced bone-implant contact and removal torque. Furthermore, pre-exposure to radiation induced different molecular dysfunctions such as (i) increased expression of pro-inflammatory (Tnf) and osteoclastic (Ctsk) genes and decreased expression of the bone formation (Alpl) gene in implant-adherent cells; (ii) increased expression of bone formation (Alpl and Bglap) genes in peri-implant bone; and (iii) increased expression of pro-inflammatory (Tnf) and pro-fibrotic (Tgfb1) genes in peri-implant soft tissue. The serum levels of pro-inflammatory, bone formation and bone resorption proteins were greater in the irradiated rats. CONCLUSIONS: Irradiation causes the dysregulation of multiple biological activities, among which perturbed inflammation seems to play a common role in hindering osseointegration.

Clinical outcomes following atrophic alveolar ridge reconstruction using collagenated xenogeneic bone block or autogenous bone block: One-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical.

AIM: This investigation aimed to evaluate the 1-year survival of implants placed after staged lateral alveolar ridge augmentation using equine-derived collagenated xenogeneic bone blocks (CXBBs) or autogenous bone block (ABB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent lateral augmentation in a previous trial were included. The primary outcome measure was implant survival at the 1-year follow-up, and secondary outcomes included implant success, peri-implant clinical and volumetric parameters, pink aesthetic scores (PES) and patient-reported outcome measures. Data analysis involved Fisher's exact test, the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In this study, no late implant failures were observed. The cumulative survival rates were 78.6% for the CXBB group and 90.9% for the ABB group, with no difference between the groups. Similarly, the success rates were 53.6% and 63.6%, respectively, showing no significant difference. Peri-implant clinical and volumetric parameters indicated the presence of healthy peri-implant tissues surrounding implants placed in both CXBB- and ABB-augmented sites. PES were 8.5 and 11.0 for implants placed in CXBB- and ABB-augmented sites, respectively. Furthermore, patient satisfaction rates were high and similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants placed in both CXBB- and ABB-augmented ridges demonstrated no statistically significant differences in clinical, volumetric and aesthetic outcomes, along with high patient satisfaction rates.

Improved positional accuracy of dental implant placement using a haptic and machine-vision-controlled collaborative surgery robot: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the implant accuracy, safety and morbidity between robot-assisted and freehand dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects requiring single-site dental implant placement were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to freehand implant placement and robot-assisted implant placement. Differences in positional accuracy of the implant, surgical morbidity and complications were assessed. The significance of intergroup differences was tested with an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol (PP) analysis (excluding one patient due to calibration error). RESULTS: Twenty patients (with a median age of 37, 13 female) were included. One subject assigned to the robotic arm was excluded from the PP analysis because of a large calibration error due to the dislodgement of the index. For robot-assisted and freehand implant placement, with the PP analysis, the median (25th-75th percentile) platform global deviation, apex global deviation and angular deviation were 1.23 (0.9-1.4) mm/1.9 (1.2-2.3) mm (p = .03, the Mann-Whitney U-test), 1.40 (1.1-1.6) mm/2.1 (1.7-3.9) mm (p < .01) and 3.0 (0.9-6.0)°/6.7 (2.2-13.9)° (p = .08), respectively. Both methods showed limited damage to the alveolar ridge and had similar peri- and post-operative morbidity and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted implant placement enabled greater positional accuracy of the implant compared to freehand placement in this pilot trial. The robotic system should be further developed to simplify surgical procedures and improve accuracy and be validated in properly sized trials assessing the full spectrum of relevant outcomes.

Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the 5-year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0 ), and at 1 (T1 ), 12 (T12 ) and 60 (T60 ) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre-operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score-White Aesthetic Score), soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was -0.6 (-1.1 to -0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (-0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This 5-year follow-up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri-implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

Radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation at sites without perforations and sites with perforations managed with a resorbable membrane: A retrospective study.

AIM: To evaluate the radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement at sites without sinus membrane perforation (SMP) and sites with SMP managed with a resorbable membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients and 170 implants (56 perforation, 114 non-perforation) were included. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were taken before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1) and 6 months after surgery (T2). Post-operative augmentation parameters, including endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG) along the implant axis, mean new bone height (NBH) surrounding the implant and augmentation volume (AV), were measured at T1 and T2. RESULTS: At T1, there were no significant differences in ESBG, NBH and AV between the two groups. At T2, although ESBG did not significantly differ between the two groups, NBH (8.50 ± 1.99 mm vs. 9.99 ± 2.52 mm, p = .039) and AV (519.37 ± 258.38 mm3 vs. 700.99 ± 346.53 mm3, p < .001) were significantly lower in the perforation group. The shrinkage of graft material from T1 to T2, including ΔESBG (p = .002), ΔNBH (p < .001) and ΔAV (p < .001), was higher in the perforation group. CONCLUSIONS: SMP during LSFE with simultaneous implant placement is associated with greater resorption of the grafted area at a 6-month follow-up.

Clinical outcomes and risk factor analysis of dental implants inserted with lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A 3- to 8-year retrospective study.

AIM: To evaluate the 3- to 8-year outcomes of dental implants placed with lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) and to identify factors affecting implant survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was performed by screening all implants placed with LSFA procedures, which were conducted between January 2012 and December 2016. Subantral bone gain (SABG) and apical bone height (ABH) were assessed using panoramic radiographs. The cumulative survival rate of implants was analysed using life-table analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The influential risk factors affecting survival were assessed using univariate log-rank tests and multivariable mixture cure rate model. Implant complications were recorded. RESULTS: Based on the established criteria, a total of 449 patients (760 implants) were included in this study. In the 3- to 8-year follow-up (mean ± SD, 5.81 ± 1.33 years), 15 implants in 14 patients failed, with a CRS of 96.81% on an implant basis and 95.07% on a patient basis. A history of periodontitis and poor compliance with supportive periodontal treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of implant failure at both implant and patient levels. Significant decreases in ABH occurred during each yearly interval except for 3 years. A similar trend has been observed for SABG at 1, 2, 6 and 8 years. The total complication rate was 31.84% on implant basis, with peri-implant mucositis (21.58%) being the most frequent biologic complication and porcelain cracking (5.00%) being the most common technical complication. CONCLUSIONS: Implant with LSFA is a reliable treatment option in atrophic maxilla. A history of periodontitis without regular supportive periodontal treatment was identified as a predictor for implant failure. Slight but significant shrinkage of vertically augmented bone can be observed after implant placement.

Flapless early implant placement into the uncalcified provisional matrix-Does it lead to osseointegration of the implant? A preclinical study.

AIM: To test whether early implant placement into the extraction socket containing an uncalcified provisional matrix leads to successful osseointegration and stable marginal bone levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six mongrel dogs, the mandibular molars were extracted. Three weeks later, early implant placement was performed according to three experimental protocols: (i) flapless implant placement with preservation of the provisional matrix; (ii) flap elevation, socket debridement and implant placement; and (iii) flap elevation, socket debridement, implant placement and guided bone regeneration (GBR). One untreated extraction socket served as a control group. Data analyses were based on histologic slides 3 months after implant placement. RESULTS: There were no differences in bone-to-implant contact between the three experimental groups (66.97%, 58.89% and 60.89%, respectively) (inter-group comparison p = .42). Marginal bone levels, first bone-to-implant contact as well as the thickness of the connective tissue did not reveal any significant differences between the groups (p = .85, .60 and .65, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Flapless early implant placement into posterior extraction sockets was as effective as an open flap approach in conjunction with GBR. Mineralization of the socket seems to occur irrespective of the presence of dental implants or biomaterials.

Effects of implant placement timing and type of soft-tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical canine model.

AIM: To determine the effects of implant timing and type of soft-tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four implant placement protocols were randomly applied at the mesial root sites of the third and fourth mandibular premolars in 10 mongrel dogs: immediate placement (group IP), early placement (group EP), delayed placement with/without alveolar ridge preservation (groups ARP and DP, respectively). A connective-tissue graft (CTG) or porcine-derived volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) was applied to enhance the ridge profile (simultaneously with implant placement in group IP and staged for others), resulting in five sites for each combination. All dogs were sacrificed 3 months after soft-tissue grafting. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed, and the data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: CTG and VCMX were difficult to differentiate from the augmented area. The median total tissue thickness on the buccal aspect of the implant was largest in group IP/CTG (between 2.78 and 3.87 mm). The soft-tissue thickness was generally favourable with CTG at all implant placement timings. Within the DP groups, CTG yielded statistically significantly larger total and soft-tissue thickness than VCMX (p < .05). Among the groups with VCMX, group EP/VCMX showed the largest soft-tissue thickness at apical levels to the implant shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: CTG generally led to greater tissue thickness than VCMX.

Dynamic analyses of a soft tissue-implant interface: Biological responses to immediate versus delayed dental implants.

AIM: To qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the formation and maturation of peri-implant soft tissues around 'immediate' and 'delayed' implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Miniaturized titanium implants were placed in either maxillary first molar (mxM1) fresh extraction sockets or healed mxM1 sites in mice. Peri-implant soft tissues were evaluated at multiple timepoints to assess the molecular mechanisms of attachment and the efficacy of the soft tissue as a barrier. A healthy junctional epithelium (JE) served as positive control. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the rate of soft-tissue integration of immediate versus delayed implants; however, overall, mucosal integration took at least twice as long as osseointegration in this model. Qualitative assessment of Vimentin expression over the time course of soft-tissue integration indicated an initially disorganized peri-implant connective tissue envelope that gradually matured with time. Quantitative analyses showed significantly less total collagen in peri-implant connective tissues compared to connective tissue around teeth around implants. Quantitative analyses also showed a gradual increase in expression of hemidesmosomal attachment proteins in the peri-implant epithelium (PIE), which was accompanied by a significant inflammatory marker reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Within the timeframe examined, quantitative analyses showed that connective tissue maturation never reached that observed around teeth. Hemidesmosomal attachment protein expression levels were also significantly reduced compared to those in an intact JE, although quantitative analyses indicated that macrophage density in the peri-implant environment was reduced over time, suggesting an improvement in PIE barrier functions. Perhaps most unexpectedly, maturation of the peri-implant soft tissues was a significantly slower process than osseointegration.

Three-dimensional imaging analysis of CAD/CAM custom-milled versus prefabricated allogeneic block remodelling at 6 months and long-term follow-up of dental implants: A retrospective cohort study.

AIM: This retrospective cohort study aimed to volumetrically investigate the bone stability rate of prefabricated allogeneic bone blocks (PBB) and computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) custom-milled allogeneic bone blocks (CCBB) for ridge augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients were treated with 20 allografts: 11 CCBB, 9 PBB; 10 in the maxilla and 10 in the mandible. Clinical treatment history and cone beam computed tomography scans before surgery (t0), directly after graft surgery (t1) and after 6 months of healing prior to implant insertion (t2) were evaluated using a three-dimensional evaluation software for absolute bone volume, stability as well as vertical and horizontal bone gain. Furthermore, the inserted implants were analysed for survival, marginal bone loss (MBL) and complications for a mean follow-up period of 43.75 (±33.94) months. RESULTS: A mean absolute volume of 2228.1 mm3 (±1205) was grafted at t1. The bone stability rate was 87.6% (±9.9) for CCBB and 83.0% (±14.5) for PBB. The stability was higher in the maxilla (91.6%) than in the mandible (79.53%). Surgery time of PBB was longer than for CCBB (mean Δ = 52 min). The survival rate of the inserted implants was 100% with a mean MBL of 0.41 mm (±0.37). CONCLUSION: The clinical performance of both allograft block designs was equally satisfactory for vertical and horizontal bone grafting prior to implant placement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06027710.

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Timing of Soft-Tissue Augmentation in Immediate Implant Placement: Hard-Tissue Changes and Clinical Outcome.

AIM: To assess the impact of the timing of soft-tissue augmentation (STA) on mean buccal bone changes following immediate implant placement (IPP) in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing tooth and intact buccal bone wall in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Following single IIP and socket grafting, they were randomly allocated to the control group (immediate STA performed during the same surgical procedure) or the test group (delayed STA performed 3 months later). Implants were placed with a surgical guide and immediately restored with an implant-supported provisional crown. Changes in bone dimensions were assessed using superimposed CBCT images taken prior to surgery and at 1-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were registered at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to each group (control: 16 females, 4 males, mean age 57.6; test: 9 females, 11 males, mean age 54.2). Ten patients in the control group and 13 patients in the test group had a thick bone wall phenotype. Estimated marginal mean horizontal buccal bone loss at 1 mm below the implant shoulder was -0.553 and -0.898 mm for the control and test group, respectively. The estimated mean difference of 0.344 mm in favour of the control group was not significant (95% CI: -0.415 to 1.104; p = 0.363). Also at all other horizontal and vertical levels, no significant differences could be observed between the groups. The combination of socket grafting and STA enabled counteraction of any buccal soft-tissue loss (≥ 0 mm) at 1 mm below the implant shoulder in 82% of the patients in the control group and in 75% of the patients in the test group (p = 1.000). The clinical outcome was favourable in both groups, yet implants in the control group demonstrated slightly less marginal bone loss (median difference 0.20 mm; 95% CI: 0.00-0.44; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: In patients with an intact and mainly thick buccal bone wall in the anterior maxilla, the timing of STA following IIP had no significant impact on mean buccal bone loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05537545.

Radiographic alveolar bone assessment in correlation with primary implant stability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The radiographic examination of alveolar bone using 3D radiographic examination is essential in dental implant treatment planning. Our study aimed to systematically review and quantitatively analyze the correlation between alveolar bone parameters, specifically bone density and cortical bone thickness, assessed using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and/or multidetector computed tomography (MDCT); and primary implant stability (PIS) determined using implant stability quotient (ISQ), Periotest® value (PTV), and insertion torque value (ITV). METHODS: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42022307245). An electronic literature search was conducted on the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases for papers published until February 2022. The Quality Assessment in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the estimated average correlation coefficient based on a multilevel random-effects model, followed by subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in this review, consisting of 17 prospective cohort studies, eight retrospective cohort studies, and one nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 3109 implants placed in 1171 subjects were analyzed. Twenty-three studies were evaluated using meta-analysis. The alveolar bone condition was significantly correlated with ISQ (r = 0.60; p < .001), IT (r = 0.52; p < .001), and PTV (r = -0.42; p < .05). CONCLUSION: Alveolar bone condition is significantly associated with PIS. Low bone density and thin cortical bone can lead to low PIS; therefore, modification of treatment planning and surgical procedures might be needed to avoid poor osseointegration.

Performance of a new implant system and drilling protocol-A minipig intraoral dental implant model study.

AIM: A new implant system encompassing implants with a tri-oval cross-sectional design and a simplified site preparation protocol at low speed and no irrigation has been developed. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the new implant system using the minipig intraoral dental implant model. METHODS: Eight Yucatan minipigs were included. Twelve weeks after extractions, four implants per animal were randomly placed and allowed to heal transmucosal for 13 weeks: two Ø3.5 × 10 mm implants with a back-tapered collar and circular cross-section (control) and two Ø3.5 × 11 mm implants with tri-oval collar and cross-section (test). MicroCT and histological analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two implants were placed; one implant for the control group was lost. Histologically, BIC was higher in the test compared with the control group (74.1% vs. 60.9%, p < .001). At the platform level, inflammation was statistically significantly higher albeit mild in the test compared with the control group. No other significant differences were observed between groups. MicroCT analysis showed that bone-to-implant-contact (BIC) and trabecular thickness were statistically significantly higher for the test than the control group. Test group had significantly higher first BIC distance than controls on lingual sites. CONCLUSIONS: The present study results support the safety and efficacy of the new dental implant system and simplified site preparation protocol; human studies should be carried out to confirm these findings.

Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping.

AIM: To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis. RESULTS: We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers. CONCLUSIONS: The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

Primary stability and osseointegration comparing a novel tapered design tissue-level implant with a parallel design tissue-level implant. An experimental in vivo study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare a novel tapered, double-threaded self-tapping tissue-Level design implant (TLC) to a well-established parallel walled tissue-level (TL) implant in terms of primary and secondary stability over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Test TLC (n = 10/per timepoint) and control TL (n = 10/per timepoint) implants were placed in the mandible of minipigs and left for submerged healing for 3, 6, and 12 weeks. Maximum insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were measured for each implant at placement. Osseointegration and cortical bone maintenance were histologically evaluated by measuring total bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and first bone-to-implant contact (fBIC). RESULTS: A significantly higher maximum insertion torque was measured for the test implant TLC compared to the control TL implant (57.83 ± 24.73 Ncm and 22.62 ± 23.16 Ncm, respectively; p < .001). The mean ISQ values were comparable between the two implant types (75.00 ± 6.70 for TL compared to 75.40 ± 3.20 for TLC, p = .988). BIC was comparable between both implant types at each of the evaluated time points. The fBIC was found to be significantly more coronal at 12 weeks for the TLC implant compared to the TL implant (0.31 ± 0.83 mm for TLC compared to -0.22 ± 0.85 for TL, p = .027). CONCLUSION: The novel tapered tissue level design implant showed improved primary stability and an overall improved crestal bone height maintenance compared to the parallel walled design at 12 weeks.

Comparative osseointegration of hydrophobic tissue-level tapered implants-A preclinical in vivo study.

PURPOSE: To histometrically compare the osseointegration and crestal bone healing of a novel tapered, self-cutting tissue-level test implant with a standard tissue-level control implant in a submerged healing regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a mandibular minipig model, implants were inserted and evaluated histometrically after a healing period of 3, 6, and 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the evaluation of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and secondary outcomes were primary stability as per insertion torque and first BIC (fBIC). Outcomes for the test and control implants were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and mixed linear regression models. RESULTS: Insertion torque values were significantly higher for the test (50.0 ± 26.4 Ncm) compared to the control implants (35.2 ± 19.7 Ncm, p = .0071). BIC values of test implants were non-inferior to those of control implants over the investigated study period. After 12 weeks, the corresponding values measured were 81.62 ± 11.12% and 90.41 ± 4.81% (p = .1763) for test and control implants, respectively. Similarly, no statistical difference was found for fBIC values, except for the 12 weeks outcome that showed statistically lower values for the test (-675.58 ± 590.88 µm) compared to control implants (-182.75 ± 197.40 µm, p = .0068). CONCLUSIONS: Novel self-cutting tissue-level implants demonstrated noninferior osseointegration and crestal bone height maintenance to the tissue-level implants. Histometric outcomes between both implants demonstrated test implants were statistically noninferior to control implants, despite substantial differences in the bone engagement mechanism and resulting differences in insertion torque and qualitative bone healing patterns.

Accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched on October 25, 2023. Model studies or clinical studies reporting the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement among patients with missing or hopeless teeth were included. Risks of bias in clinical studies were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Data from 8 clinical studies reporting on 109 patients and 242 implants and 13 preclinical studies were included. Positional accuracy was measured by comparing the implant plan in presurgery CBCT and the actual implant position in postsurgery CBCT. For clinical studies, the pooled (95% confidence interval) platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.68 (0.57, 0.79) mm, 0.67 (0.58, 0.75) mm, and 1.69 (1.25, 2.12)°, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of implants placed in partially or fully edentulous patients. For model studies, the pooled platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.72 (0.58, 0.86) mm, 0.90 (0.74, 1.06) mm, and 1.46 (1.22, 1.70)°, respectively. No adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the present systematic review, robotic surgery for dental implant placement showed suitable implant positional accuracy and had no reported obvious harm. Both robotic systems and clinical studies on robotic surgery for dental implant placement should be further developed.