Do the progression of experimentally induced gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis present common features? A systematic review of clinical human studies.

This systematic review evaluated the features of the progression of experimentally induced gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis in humans. Included were studies that evaluated clinical, immunological, or microbiological responses between experimentally induced gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis in periodontally healthy patients. A total of 887 articles were initially identified, but only 12 were included in the final analysis. Implants accumulate less biofilm and suffer the most heterogeneous alterations in the microbiota, in the abstinence of oral hygiene, compared with the tooth. Interestingly, although dental implants presented less biofilm accumulation, the peri-implant mucosa showed a more exacerbated clinical response than the gingival tissue. The risk of bias of the selected studies was moderate to low, with one study presenting serious risk. The progression events of peri-implant mucositis were similar to those of experimental gingivitis but led to a different host response. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database CRD420201 123360.

Intentionally Exposed d-PTFE Membrane and Guided Bone Regeneration after Malpositioned Dental Implant in Anterior Area: A Case Report with 1-year Follow-up.

This article describes the removal of a malpositioned dental implant, using an implant retriever, followed by guided tissue regeneration with the use of an xenogeneic graft and a dense polytetrafluorethylene membrane that remained partially exposed for 28 days, and the post-surgical prosthetic and orthodontic treatment until conclusion of the oral rehabilitation procedure. The patient, 50 years of age, presented to a private clinic for evaluation of an implant supported fixed crown, with unsatisfactory esthetic appearance and function. The treatment plan involved the removal of this implant, guided bone regeneration, and placement of a new implant in a better 3D position. Subsequently, the patient received a provisional dental prosthesis, orthodontic treatment in order to realign the gingival margins, and additional rehabilitation with the application of some ceramic veneers to enhance the patient's esthetic appearance, improve function, and show the 1-year follow-up of the case. The treatment plan was shown to be appropriate for this case, in which soft and hard tissue were adequately regenerated, and resulted in good oral rehabilitation with tissue stability around the teeth and implant.

Mandibular Full-Arch Rehabilitation over 3 Straight Immediately Loaded Implants: 8 Years of Follow-Up.

Mandibular full-arch restoration is a good and successful treatment option for totally edentulous patients. In the past years, several studies have described the placement of 4 to 6 implants to restore this type of case; however, an option using 3 dental implants placed in strategic and specific positions could also be an alternative. Therefore, this case report describes a full-arch rehabilitation on 3 straight, immediately loaded implants after 8 years of follow-up. The restoration presented no biological or technical complications during this follow-up period, showing that an adequate treatment plan was able to allow good results using this treatment option.

Does subgingival bacterial colonization differ between implants and teeth? A systematic review.

The aim was of this study was to determine the current weight of evidence for the existence of specific differences between the microbiota of healthy teeth and healthy implants, or of teeth with periodontitis and implants with peri-implantitis. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2018 for studies comparing microbiological data of biofilm samples collected from healthy teeth and implants or from teeth with periodontitis and implants with peri-implantitis. The weight of evidence was defined in three categories (strong, moderate and mild/some), according to the difference in number of studies showing statistically significantly higher counts and/or proportions and/or abundance and/or prevalence of microorganisms in health or in disease. Of the 132 articles identified, 8 were included. A wide range of microorganisms were present in different conditions but no microorganisms showed strong, moderate or mild/some evidence for a specific association with either teeth or implants. The results of this systematic review indicated that there is insufficient evidence in the literature to support specific differences between microorganisms colonizing teeth and implants, either in health or in disease.

Does subgingival bacterial colonization differ between implants and teeth? A systematic review

Abstract The aim was of this study was to determine the current weight of evidence for the existence of specific differences between the microbiota of healthy teeth and healthy implants, or of teeth with periodontitis and implants with peri-implantitis. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2018 for studies comparing microbiological data of biofilm samples collected from healthy teeth and implants or from teeth with periodontitis and implants with peri-implantitis. The weight of evidence was defined in three categories (strong, moderate and mild/some), according to the difference in number of studies showing statistically significantly higher counts and/or proportions and/or abundance and/or prevalence of microorganisms in health or in disease. Of the 132 articles identified, 8 were included. A wide range of microorganisms were present in different conditions but no microorganisms showed strong, moderate or mild/some evidence for a specific association with either teeth or implants. The results of this systematic review indicated that there is insufficient evidence in the literature to support specific differences between microorganisms colonizing teeth and implants, either in health or in disease.

Implante imediato com provisionalização imediata através de cicatrizador multifuncional de PEEK / Immediate implant placement and provisionalization using a multifunctional PEEK healing abutment

Este artigo teve por objetivo apresentar um caso clínico cuja prótese provisória utilizou um componente protético multifuncional de PEEK. Este é um polímero biocompatível personalizável e de boa aderência às resinas. O caso descrito é um implante imediato com carga imediata na região do 21. Foi realizado um approach palatino do implante, preenchimento do gap vestibular com um enxerto aloplástico (Nanosynt), um provisório imediato utilizando um componente provisório multifuncional de PEEK e um dente de estoque. O caso foi acompanhado até a fase de confecção da prótese defi nitiva, na qual foi verifi cada a arquitetura dos tecidos peri-implantares quanto à saúde e manutenção. Na Implantodontia contemporânea, o PEEK é a opção biológico-funcional com melhor custo-benefício nos casos de implantes colocados e carregados imediatamente.

The aim of this article was to present a clinical case where the provisional restoration was fabricated over a multifunctional PEEK healing abutment. This biocompatible polymer can be customized and has excellent bond strength to resin composites. A dental implant was loaded at the region of tooth 21. After a palatal approach for implant placement, the buccal gap was fi lled with an alloplastic graft (Nanosynt). Then, the immediate restoration was fabricated with the multifunctional PEEK and an acrylic tooth form. At the delivery of the defi nitive restoration, the peri-implant soft tissue health and architecture were preserved. In the contemporary implant dentistry, PEEK abutments provide the best biological and functional option with a signifi cant cost-benefi t ratio for cases of immediate implant loading

Avaliação pelo MEF da distribuição das tensões no implante, componentes protéticos e coroa, em conexões com hexágono externo, interno e Cone Morse / Evaluation using FEM on the stressdistribution on the implant, prostheticcomponents and crown, with Cone Morse, external and internal hexagon connections

Objetivo: comparar a distribuição de tensões em sistemas de implantes com diferentes tipos de conexões (hexágono externo, hexágono interno e Cone Morse), pelo Método de Elementos Finitos Bidimensional. Métodos: uma força de 100N foi aplicada na cúspide vestibular de um segundo pré-molar inferior, no sentido axial, e, posteriormente, com inclinação de 45o em cada sistema. As análises foram realizadas pelos critérios das tensões de von Mises. Resultados: os resultados apontaram que, em todos os três sistemas, a maior concentração de tensões deu-se na região do pescoço do implante em contato com o osso cortical, com exceção do sistema Cone Morse, onde a tensão se concentrou na porção interna do implante em contato com o pilar. Também foi observado que cargas inclinadas sempre geraram valores superiores aos obtidos com as cargas axiais. Conclusão: pode-se concluir, então, que os parafusos dos pilares são a porção mais frágil dos sistemas. Nos implantes, os sistemas com conexão interna têm distribuição mais uniforme das tensões que o de conexão externa.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the stress distribution between implant systems with differenttypes of connections, i.e., external hexagon, internal hexagon and morse taper, by applying the Two-DimensionalFinite Element Method. Methods: A 100-N load was applied to the buccal cusp of an inferior second premolar inthe axial direction and thereafter at an inclination of 45o on each system. Analysis was performed by means ofthe von Mises stresses criteria. Results: The results showed that in, all systems, the highest stress concentrationoccurred in the neck of the implant in contact with the cortical bone, except for the morse taper models, where thestress was concentrated in the inner portion of the implant in contact with the abutment. It also became apparentthat oblique forces resulted in higher stress values than those obtained with axial loads. Conclusion: It could beconcluded that abutment screws are the most fragile portion of the systems. Internal connection implant systemsexhibited a more uniform distribution of stresses than external connection implant systems.