Patient-reported outcome measures comparing static computer-aided implant surgery and conventional implant surgery for single-tooth replacement: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and conventional implant surgery (CIS) for single-tooth replacement in posterior sites in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Forty patients were divided into two groups for treatment with s-CAIS (Test) and CIS (Control). Patients' anxiety level was measured using the modified dental anxiety score before implant surgery. After surgery, patients completed two questionnaires for 7 days. The first questionnaire assessed pain level using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the incident rate of pain using a 5-point Likert scale; analgesic intake was also recorded. The second questionnaire investigated patients' oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) including postoperative symptoms, oral function, and daily activity. The difference between data was compared at significance level (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in pretreatment dental anxiety level, postoperative pain scores, and OHRQoL between treatment groups. Overall, mild or moderate dental anxiety was reported by 70% and 20% of patients, respectively. Pain score was significantly reduced by postoperative Day 3 in the test group and Day 4 in the control group, compared with baseline. Both groups significant reduced analgesic intake by postoperative Day 5. Most OHRQoL-related complaints subsided approximately 3 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PROMs between s-CAIS and CIS were not significantly different for the single-tooth implant surgery in the posterior area. Postoperative symptoms after implant surgery still inevitably occurred, reflecting the normal process of oral wound healing.

Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm ("Mini-implants"); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.

Establishing Clinically Acceptable PES/WES Threshold for Single- Tooth Implant Restoration.

PURPOSE: Determining the esthetic success of single-tooth implant restorations (STIR) requires an objective tool such as one devised by Belser et al., 2009 - pink esthetic scores and white esthetic scores (PES/WES). This study aimed to utilized PES/WES to establish threshold scores based on (1) detectability and (2) acceptability of a STIR by lay person perception, (3) to study the difference in the ability of laypeople and dentists in detecting the presence of STIR, and (4) to study the pink and white deficiencies in relation to the detectability of the presence of STIR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 38 calibrated photographs of STIR in the anterior region were scored with PES/WES by 3 prosthodontists. Next, 100 laypeople and 60 dentists were instructed to identify the STIR among the anterior teeth and provide reasoning behind the identification (based on pink and white esthetic criteria). The acceptance of the STIR was recorded. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis was utilized to determine the threshold scores. RESULTS: At the PES/WES score of 17, 71% of laypeople could not correctly identify the STIR, and at the PES/WES score of 12, 80% of laypeople accepted the implant. Out of 3,800 occasions, laypeople correctly identified the STIR 1,770 (46.58%) of those occasions. Among the correctly identified STIR, 751 (42.43%) of those occasions were identified with pink deficiencies and 1019 (57.57%) of those occasions were with white deficiencies. Out of 2,280 occasions, dentists correctly identified STIR 1869 (81.98%) of those occasions. CONCLUSIONS: The PES/WES score of 12 indicates the clinically acceptable threshold, while the score of 17 indicates the detectable threshold for an exceptional esthetic outcome. Laypeople tend to accept the implant despite its detectability. For both laypeople and dentists, root convexity/soft tissue color and texture are the most focused criteria of PES/WES, followed by overall white deficiencies that remain influential. Compared to laypeople, dentists tend to have a higher ability to detect STIR.

Retention of zirconia crown to oxidized titanium base abutment: Experimental research.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: To separate the crown from the titanium base abutment, by using heat, caused oxidization of the titanium base abutment. The effect of this procedure on the retention of a crown is unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the resin bond strength and failure type between zirconia crowns and titanium base abutments utilizing four different surface treatments. Surface roughness and morphology of each surface treatment were also investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty titanium base abutments (Variobase®) were divided into four groups, 1. Control, 2. Air abraded, 3. Oxidized, and 4. Oxidized-air abraded. Oxidized and oxidized-air abraded groups were debonded from zirconia crowns using constant dry heat at 500 ˚C. For air abraded and oxidized-air abraded groups (after oxidization), the titanium base abutments were air abraded with Al3O2. After cleaning, one specimen of each group was investigated under a non-contact profilometer (50x), then the same samples were investigated under SEM at 25,300,500,1000 magnification and EDS at 30kV of accelerated voltage. All specimens were then cemented (RelyX Ultimate). After aging, with thermocycling under 5C° to 55C°,120 seconds dwell time for 5,000 cycles, bond strength was tested and statistical differences were calculated with One-way ANOVA (p-value <0.05) follow by Tukey test. All separated crowns and titanium base abutments were investigated under a light microscope (20x), using fisher's exact test for correlation of the failure types. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the mean value of tensile bond strength among the control and test groups. Comparisons between control(237.6±46.3N) and oxidized(241.7±46.3N) showed statistically different values from air abraded(372.9±113.2N) when assembled using different surface treatments of the titanium-based abutments. (p-value<0.005) As for failure type, there were statistically significant differences between control versus air abraded, control versus oxidized-air abraded, oxidized versus air abraded, and oxidized versus oxidized-air abraded. (p-value<0.001) The titanium surface morphology shown from the profilometer and SEM was coordinated. Control (Ra 333.8nm) and oxidized (Ra 321.0nm) groups surfaces showed smooth, corrugated surfaces, meanwhile air abraded (Ra 476.0nm) and oxidized-air abraded (Ra 423.8nm) groups showed rough, rugged surfaces. CONCLUSION: Heat oxidization of titanium-based abutments did not adversely affect tensile bond strength or the failure mode and surface roughness between titanium base abutments and zirconia crowns. However, air abrasion of the titanium surface increased surface roughness and retentive strength. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The titanium base abutments that were oxidized under heat treatment did not have an effect on crown retention. Thoroughly air abraded the titanium abutment prior to cementation can increase cement bond strength.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing digital and conventional workflows for treatment with posterior single-unit implant restorations: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to analyze patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of prosthetic therapy with monolithic implant crowns in completely digital workflows (test) with intraoral optical scanning (IOS) and conventional workflows (control) with conventional impressions. Secondary, an objective evaluation of the final implant restorations was performed using the Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients who required an implant-supported single crown on posterior regions were randomly divided into test (n = 20) and control (n = 20) groups for impression taking. Each group was then equally separated into two subgroups according to the restorative material used: lithium disilicate (LS2, N!CE®, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) or polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (PICN, Enamic®, Vita, Bad Säckingen, Germany). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using PROM questionnaires with visual analog scales (VAS) after impression-taking and 1 week after prosthetic delivery. Patient satisfaction with the impression technique was assessed in six domains: length, comfort, anxiety, taste, nausea, and pain, whereas patient satisfaction with the final restoration was assessed in four domains: overall treatment outcome, functionality, esthetics, and cleanability. In addition, the final implant restorations were objectively assessed by an independent prosthodontist using the FIPS. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the defined outcomes. Statistical analysis was completed with a level of significance set at α=0.05. RESULTS: PROMs focusing on the impression technique demonstrated higher levels of patient satisfaction for IOS compared to conventional impressions, especially in terms of "taste irritation" (p = 0.036); whereas no significant differences were found between both restorative CAD/CAM-materials. Mean FIPS values demonstrated similar results among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this study, both completely digital and conventional protocols provided great levels of patient satisfaction in implant rehabilitation of single-tooth gaps in posterior sites with monolithic implant crowns. The restorative material, LS2 versus PICN, does not impact patient satisfaction with their treatment. However, a long-term follow up is needed to draw more specific conclusions on patient satisfaction with the restorations.

Accuracy of computer-guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants in the anterior region: A prospective clinical study.

PURPOSE: Placement of one-piece ceramic dental implants requires precision, which can be enhanced by using a computer-guided system. This prospective clinical study examines the accuracy of partially guided implantation in the placement of one-piece ceramic implants in the anterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-piece ceramic dental implants were placed in 20 patients who were missing a central or lateral incisor. Partially guided dental implant placements were performed in all cases. The deviations in the implant positions were analyzed by superimposing post-operative cone beam computed tomography images over pre-operative treatment planning images. The results were reported as deviations (mean ± standard deviation) for three aspects (3D offset, mesio-distal, labio-lingual, and apico-coronal) and in three dimensions (the angle, coronal, and apical parts). RESULTS: Implants were successfully placed in 20 patients. The mean angular deviation was 4.23±1.84°, whereas the mean coronal 3D offset was 0.98±0.48 mm, and the mean apical 3D offset was 1.57±0.46 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective clinical study involving 20 patients was conducted to measure the accuracy of computer-guided implantation of one-piece ceramic dental implants. Accuracy was determined by comparing the planned implant position to the actual position. Greater accuracy can be expected at the coronal part than at the apical part. The coronal 3D offset was found to be the most accurate.

A Pilot Study of Small-Diameter One-Piece Ceramic Implants Placed in Anterior Regions: Clinical and Esthetic Outcomes at 1-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of one-piece zirconia implants placed in incisal areas using digital surgical templates after 1 year of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who had lost an anterior tooth received a 3.3-mm-diameter zirconia implant placed by computer-guided surgery. Implant survival and soft tissue conditions were assessed periodically 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after loading. Standardized radiographs were taken at definitive prosthesis insertion and 1 year postloading to evaluate peri-implant bone loss. Additionally, the esthetic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were also investigated. RESULTS: Twenty zirconia implants were placed in 20 patients with no implants lost, resulting in 100% survival rates. A minor change in the mean marginal bone level (0.14 ± 0.87 mm) was found between definitive prosthetic loading and 12 months later. Peri-implant soft tissue remained stable throughout the observation period. The mean Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score were 12.05 and 8.60, respectively, while the mean Gingival Papilla Index scores were 1.55 at the mesial papilla and 1.65 at the distal papilla at the 1-year follow-up. The mean visual analog scale scores for patient perception of the overall process, speech, mastication, and esthetics were 93.3 ± 7.8, 95.1 ± 5.3, 93.6 ± 7.6, and 94.5 ± 6.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: For the 1-year results, 3.3-mm-diameter one-piece ceramic implants placed by computer-guided surgery showed favorable clinical performances with no failure when used for single-tooth replacement in anterior regions.

Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to use finite element analysis to investigate the effect of misfit prostheses, cantilever prostheses, and various occlusal forces on the stress distribution in the prostheses, implant components, and surrounding bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two 3-dimensional finite element models were constructed: (1) a 2-implant-supported, 2-unit fixed partial denture and (2) a 2-implant-supported, 2-unit fixed partial denture with a distal cantilever. Variations of the standard finite element models were made by placing a 111-microm gap between the gold cylinder on either the mesial or distal implant. The effects of load of 100 N were tested on all models. Subsequently, loads of 50 N, 200 N, and 300 N were evaluated on the cantilever model. RESULTS: When the gap was positioned near to the applied force, the stress in both models increased significantly in the implant components and surrounding bone. The stress increase in each component ranged from 8% to 64% in the non-cantilever models and 43% to 85% in the cantilever models. The greatest stress was found in the distal gold screw. The effect of the gap was clearly shown by the pattern of stress distribution in both models. Additionally, the presence of a cantilever and excessive occlusal force amplified the effect of prosthesis misfit. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis misfit influenced the pattern and magnitude of stress distribution in the prosthesis, implant components, and surrounding bone, and the presence of the cantilever or greater occlusal force amplified the effect of misfit.