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.

Minimal invasiveness at dental implant placement: A systematic review with meta-analyses on flapless fully guided surgery.

Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the current systematic review was to answer the following PICO question: "In adult human subjects undergoing dental implant placement (P), is minimally invasive flapless computer-aided fully guided (either dynamic or static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP)) (I) superior to flapped conventional (free-handed implant placement (FHIP) or cast-based/drill partially guided implant placement (dPGIP)) surgery (C), in terms of efficacy, patient morbidity, long-term prognosis, and costs (O)?" Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PICO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, performed full-text analysis, extracted the data from the published reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. The study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses, which were based (wherever possible) on individual patient data (IPD). A total of 10 manuscripts reporting on five RCTs, involving a total of 124 participants and 449 implants, and comparing flapless sCAIP with flapped FHIP/cast-based partially guided implant placement (cPGIP), were included. There was no RCT analyzing flapless dynamic computer-aided implant placement (dCAIP) or flapped dPGIP. Intergroup meta-analyses indicated less depth deviation (difference in means (MD) = -0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.59 to 0.03; moderate certainty), angular deviation (MD = -3.88 degrees; 95% CI: -7.00 to -0.77; high certainty), coronal (MD = -0.6 mm; 95% CI: -1.21 to 0.01; low certainty) and apical (MD = -0.75 mm; 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.07; moderate certainty) three-dimensional bodily deviations, postoperative pain (MD = -17.09 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS); 95% CI: -33.38 to -0.80; low certainty), postoperative swelling (MD = -6.59 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -19.03 to 5.85; very low certainty), intraoperative discomfort (MD = -9.36 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -17.10 to -1.61) and surgery duration (MD = -24.28 minutes; 95% CI: -28.62 to -19.95) in flapless sCAIP than in flapped FHIP/cPGIP. Despite being more accurate than flapped FHIP/cPGIP, flapless sCAIP still resulted in deviations with respect to the planned position (intragroup meta-analytic means: 0.76 mm in depth, 2.57 degrees in angular, 1.43 mm in coronal, and 1.68 in apical three-dimensional bodily position). Moreover, flapless sCAIP presented a 12% group-specific intraoperative complication rate, resulting in an inability to place the implant with this protocol in 7% of cases. Evidence regarding more clinically relevant outcomes of efficacy (implant survival and success, prosthetically and biologically correct positioning), long-term prognosis, and costs, is currently scarce. When the objective is to guarantee minimal invasiveness at implant placement, clinicians could consider the use of flapless sCAIP. A proper case selection and consideration of a safety margin are, however, suggested.

Soft-tissue dimensional change following guided bone regeneration on peri-implant defects using soft-type block or particulate bone substitutes: 1-year outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the peri-implant soft-tissue dimensional changes following guided bone regeneration between particulate (particle group) and collagenated soft-block-type (block group) biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study investigated 35 subjects: 18 in the particle group and 17 in the block group. Cone-beam computed tomography obtained at 6 months post surgery and optical impressions taken periodically (before surgery, 6 months post surgery, and 1 year post surgery) were superimposed. The ridge contour changes over time and the peri-implant mucosal thicknesses were measured diagonally and horizontally, and analysed statistically. RESULTS: The increases in diagonal (1.12 ± 0.78 mm) and horizontal (2.79 ± 1.90 mm) ridge contour of the block group were significantly higher than those in the particle group during the first 6 months (p < .05); however, the contour hardly changed thereafter (diagonal: 0.07 ± 0.75 mm; horizontal: -0.34 ± 1.26 mm), resulting in the 1-year contour changes similar between the two groups. Regardless of the type of BCP, the ridge contour increased significantly over 1 year when the dehiscence defect had a contained configuration (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in soft-tissue dimensions for 1 year was similar between the two groups. The mucosal contour increase was larger when the surgery was conducted in a more contained defect, and this was not influenced by the type of BCP.

Efficacy of a collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation after implant placement compared to connective tissue grafts: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether soft tissue volume augmentation using a collagen matrix (VCMX) leads to noninferior results in terms of gain of mucosal thickness at single implant sites, compared to connective tissue grafts (SCTG). METHODS: The study was designed as a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Subjects in need of soft tissue volume augmentation at single tooth implant sites were consecutively recruited at nine centers. The deficient mucosal thickness at the implant sites (one per patient) was augmented by applying either a VCMX or a SCTG. Patients were examined at 120 days (abutment connection = primary endpoint), 180 days (final restoration), and 360 days (1-year after insertion of the final restoration). Outcome measures included: transmucosal probing of the mucosal thickness (crestal = primary outcome), profilometric measurements of the tissue volume, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). RESULTS: Out of the 88 patients, 79 attended the one-year follow-up. The median increase of the crestal mucosal thickness between pre-augmentation and 120 days was 0.3 ± 2.1 mm in the VCMX group and 0.8 ± 1.6 mm in the SCTG group (p = .455). Non-inferiority of the VCMX compared to the SCTG was not observed. The respective numbers at the buccal aspect amounted to 0.9 ± 2.0 mm (VCMX) and 1.1 ± 1.4 mm (SCTG; p = .431). PROMs including pain perception favored the VCMX group. CONCLUSION: It remains inconclusive whether soft tissue augmentation using a VCMX is noninferior to SCTG in terms of crestal mucosal thickening at single implant sites. However, the use of collagen matrices favors PROMs especially pain perception, while achieving similar buccal volume gains along with comparable clinical and aesthetic parameters to SCTG.

Tissue integration and biodegradation of soft tissue substitutes with and without compression: an experimental study in the rat.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al2O3 were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes.

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS: The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

Strength of implant-supported lithium disilicate and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network restorations after thermomechanical aging.

AIM: To evaluate the fracture load and type of failure of two different monolithic restorative materials bonded to standardized titanium bases and fabricated by two different procedures regarding the bonding interface. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All screw-retained implant crown specimens (n = 40), subjected to fatigue by thermomechanical loading, differed in the restorative material (lithium disilicate [LDS] or polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [PICN], referred to as 'hybrid ceramic' [HYC]) and the interface type between the restorative material and the titanium base abutment (prefabricated ex-factory or produced during a CAM-milling procedure). This resulted in the following groups (n = 10/group): 1) LDS-M: lithium disilicate crown with a CAM-milled interface; 2) LDS-P: lithium disilicate crown with a prefabricated interface; 3) HYC-M: PICN crown with a CAM-milled interface; and 4) HYC-P: PICN crown with a prefabricated interface. Aged specimens underwent static fracture load testing. The load (N) at which the initial crack occurred was denoted as Finitial, and the maximal load (N) at which the restorations fractured as Fmax. All specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine the failure mode. RESULTS: The median Finitial values were 180 N for LDS-M, 343 N for LDS-P, 340 N for HYC-M, and 190 N for HYC-P. The median Fmax values were 1822 N for LDS-M, 2039 N for LDS-P, 1454 N for HYC-M, and 1581 N for HYC-P. The intergroup differences were significant for Finitial (KW: P = 0.0042) and for Fmax (KW: P = 0.0010). The failure types also showed differences between the restorative groups. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of restorative material had a stronger influence on the fracture load than the abutment interface workflow. Lithium disilicate showed the highest load for initial crack appearance (Finitial) and for complete fracture of the restoration (Fmax).

Management and prevention of soft tissue complications in implant dentistry.

The management and prevention of soft tissue complications is of key importance in modern implant dentistry and influences biologic and esthetic outcomes. The assessment of the soft tissue conditions from a quantitative and qualitative perspective should, therefore, be part of the overall treatment plan. Such an assessment dictates a potential indication as well as an ideal time point for additional soft tissue management. A proper risk assessment and management of the soft tissues at the planned implant site are of key importance prior to any implant-related surgery. Cases with peri-implant soft tissue complications generally involve: (a) a lack of attached and keratinized mucosa; (b) insufficient volume; (c) development of mucosal dehiscences; or (d) a combination of (a), (b), and (c). In case of soft tissue deficiencies, these should be addressed as early as possible to increase the predictability of the surgical interventions. This article reviews the main causes for peri-implant soft tissue complications and presents different therapeutic options for the management of various clinical scenarios.

Anterior implant restorations with a convex emergence profile increase the frequency of recession: 12-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIM: To test whether the emergence profile (CONVEX or CONCAVE) of implant-supported crowns influences the mucosal margin stability up to 12 months after insertion of the final restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with a single implant in the anterior region were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) CONVEX (n = 15), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a convex profile; (2) CONCAVE (n = 16), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a concave profile; (3) CONTROL (n = 16), no provisional (healing abutment only) and an implant-supported crown. All patients were recalled at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The stability of mucosal margin along with clinical, aesthetic, and profilometric outcomes as well as time and costs were evaluated. To predict the presence of recession, multivariable logistic regressions were performed and linear models using generalized estimation equations were conducted for the different outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were available at 12 months post-loading. The frequency of mucosal recession amounted to 64.3% in group CONVEX, 14.3% in group CONCAVE, and 31.4% in group CONTROL. Regression models revealed that a CONVEX profile was significantly associated with the presence of recessions (odds ratio: 12.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.82-88.48, p = .01) compared with the CONCAVE profile. Pink aesthetic scores amounted to 5.9 in group CONVEX, 6.2 in group CONCAVE, and 5.4 in group CONTROL, with no significant differences between the groups (p = .735). Groups CONVEX and CONCAVE increased the appointments and costs compared with the CONTROL group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of implant-supported provisionals with a CONCAVE emergence profile results in a greater stability of the mucosal margin compared with a CONVEX profile up to 12 months of loading. This is accompanied, however, by increased time and costs compared with the absence of a provisional and may not necessarily enhance the aesthetic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS00009420.

Dimensional ridge changes in conjunction with four implant timing protocols and two types of soft tissue grafts: A pilot pre-clinical study.

AIM: To determine the effect of (1) implant placement timing and (2) the type of soft tissue graft in terms of ridge profile changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four implant treatment modalities were applied in the mesial root areas of the third and fourth mandibular premolars of 10 mongrel dogs alongside connective-tissue graft (CTG) and volume-stable cross-linked collagen matrix (VCMX): immediate, early, and delayed placement (DP), and DP following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). All dogs were sacrificed 3 months after soft tissue augmentation. Standard Tessellation Language files from designated time points were analysed. RESULTS: Compared with the pre-extraction situation, the median width of the ridge demontstrated a linear increase only in group ARP/CTG (0.07 mm at the 2-mm level), whereas all other groups showed a reduction (between -1.87 and -0.09 mm, p > .05). Groups ARP/CTG (0.17 mm) and DP/CTG (0.05 mm) exhibited a profilometric tissue gain in a set region of interest (p > .05). The net effect of CTG and VCMX ranged from 0.14 to 0.79 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Dimensional ridge changes varied between treatment protocols. ARP with CTG led to the smallest difference in ridge profile between the pre-extraction and the study end time point. Both CTG and VCMX enhanced the ridge contour.

Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects with soft-type block versus particulate bone substitutes: Six-month results of hard-tissue changes.

AIM: To test whether soft-type block bone substitute used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant defects leads to a different dimension of the augmented hard tissue than particulate bone substitute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 40 patients, 40 two-piece dental implants were placed >2 months after tooth extraction. Following random allocation, 20 peri-implant bone dehiscences were grafted with a soft-type block made of synthetic biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) + collagen and 20 bone dehiscences with particulate BCP. All the sites were covered with a collagen membrane stabilized with titanium pins. Immediately after wound closure and after 6 months, the horizontal dimension (HD) of the augmented hard tissue was measured at the level of implant shoulder using cone beam computed tomography. During re-entry at 6 months, the defect fill was clinically assessed. RESULTS: At 6 months, the median HD measured 1.15 mm (mean: 1.31 mm) in the soft-block group and 0.93 mm (mean: 1.05 mm) in the particulate group (p = .6). At 6 months, 7.1% of contained defects and 61.9% of non-contained defects showed an incomplete vertical defect fill. CONCLUSIONS: Soft-type block of BCP + collagen used for GBR of peri-implant defects did not differ from particulate BCP regarding the dimension of the augmented hard tissue after 6 months of healing.

Informative title: Guided bone regeneration with and without rhBMP-2: 17-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess long-term outcomes of implants placed in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR) with or without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with at least two lateral bone defects (split-mouth design) received a total of 34 implants. The defects were treated with a xenogenic bone substitute with (test) or without (control) rhBMP-2 and covered with a collagen membrane. Eight patients could be reexamined after at least 17 years. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to assess differences between test and control groups. RESULTS: The implant survival rate was 100% for all test and control sites. Mean marginal bone levels were 2.51 mm (SD ±1.64) (mesial test), 1.83 mm (SD ±0.93) (mesial control) (p = .055), 2.36 mm (SD ±1.70) (distal test), and 2.13 mm (SD ±0.84) (distal control) (p = 1.000). Compared with the mean values at baseline, a mean bone loss of 1.16 mm (SD ±1.60) (test) and 0.70 mm (SD ±1.02) (control) was found. The mean buccal bone gain after 17 years was 5.38 mm (test) and 3.14 mm (control) based on the comparison between the measurements at the cone beam CT after 17 years and the data from the intraoperative measurements at baseline. Further, mean values for (i) bone thickness ranged from 1.36 to 3.09 mm (test) and 1.18 to 3.39 mm (control) and for (ii) mucosal thickness of 1.24 mm (test) and 1.26 mm (control). CONCLUSION: Implants placed in conjunction with GBR applying a xenogenic bone substitute and a collagen membrane with and without the addition of rhBMP-2 demonstrate excellent clinical and radiographic results after at least 17 years.

Restorative angle of zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases influences the initial marginal bone loss: 5-year results of a prospective cohort study.

AIM: To assess radiographic, restorative, clinical and technical outcomes as well as patient satisfaction of directly veneered zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases over 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a single missing tooth in the aesthetic zone were recruited. All patients received a two-piece implant with a screw-retained veneered zirconia restoration cemented extraorally on a titanium base abutment. Marginal bone levels (MBL), marginal bone changes, technical complications, patient satisfaction and clinical parameters including probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index were assessed at crown delivery (baseline), at 1 year (FU-1) and 5 years (FU-5) of follow-up. To investigate the relationship between restorative angle and MBL as well as marginal bone changes (bone loss/bone gain), correlation tests and linear regression models were carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were available for re-examination at 5 years. The mean MBL amounted to 0.54 ± 0.39 mm at baseline, and to 0.24 ± 0.35 at FU-5 (=bone gain) (p < .001). At FU-1, a positive correlation (r = .5) between the mesial restorative angle and mesial MBL was found (p = .012). Marginal bone changes between baseline and FU-1 at mesial sites were also positively correlated with the mesial restorative angle (r = .5; p = .037). Linear and logistic regression models confirmed that mesial marginal bone loss was significantly associated with the mesial restorative angle at FU-1 (p < .05). At 5 years, these significant associations at mesial sites disappeared (p > .05). At distal sites, no correlations or associations between the restorative angle and MBL or marginal bone changes were found regardless of the time point. During the 5-year follow-up, 5 technical complications occurred, mainly within the first year and mostly chippings. All patients were entirely satisfied with their implant-supported restoration at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, the restorative angle of implant-supported crowns on non-original titanium bases might influence the initial marginal bone loss but without affecting their favourable long-term clinical performance. A restorative angle of <40° may limit the initial marginal bone loss at implant-supported crowns with titanium bases.

Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.

Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based restorations in terms of clinical, radiographic, and technical outcomes 5 years after insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with single-tooth implants were randomly restored with either a cemented lithium disilicate crown on a one-piece customized zirconia abutment (CEM, 17 patients) or a screw-retained crown based on a directly veneered one-piece customized zirconia abutment (SCREW, 16 patients). All patients were recalled for a baseline examination (7-10 days after crown insertion) and then annually up to 5 years. The following outcomes were assessed: marginal bone level (changes), technical, and clinical (bleeding on probing, plaque control record, probing depth, and keratinized tissue) parameters. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess differences between the two groups. RESULTS: At 5 years, 26 patients (13 in each group) were re-examined. The survival rates on the implant and restorative levels were 100% and 82.4% (equally for both groups), respectively. At 5 years, the median marginal bone level was located at -0.15 mm (IQR: -0.89 mm; 0.27 mm) (CEM) and -0.26 mm (IQR: -0.38 mm; 0.01 mm) (SCREW) below the implant shoulder (intergroup p = .9598). The median changes between baseline and the 5-year follow-up amounted to -0.23 mm (CEM; intragroup p = .0002) and -0.15 mm (SCREW; intragroup p = .1465) (intergroup p = .1690). The overall technical complication rate at 5 years was 15.4% (CEM) and 15.4% (SCREW) (intergroup p = 1.00). Clinical parameters remained stable over time (baseline to 5 years). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, screw-retained and cemented restorations rendered largely the same clinical, technical, and radiographic outcomes. Technical complications were frequent in both groups.

Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10-year follow-up.

AIM: To assess the frequency and quantity of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth after at least 10 years of follow-up (FU). METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (median age 57.3 years) with 80 implants were re-examined at least 10 years after insertion of final restorations (single crowns or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)). Baseline (insertion of the restorations) and FU examinations encompassed the following: Stone casts were scanned and superimposed for metric assessment of tooth movements, radiographs, and clinical measurements. Outcome measures at implant sites were as follows: the extent of tooth movement and the frequency of interproximal contact loss [ICL], peri-implant marginal bone levels [MBLs], and clinical measurements (plaque control record [PCR], Bleeding on Probing [BOP], and probing depth [PD]). Data were analyzed statistically with generalized regression modeling with robust standard errors to account for within-patient clustering at 5%. RESULTS: Interproximal contact loss for at least one contact point after 10 years was observed in 50% of all implants (with open interproximal spaces up to 1.64 mm). Mesial contact points were significantly more prone to ICL than distal ones (relative risk [RR] = 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-2.99; p = .03). The type of restoration had a significant effect on ICL, with FDPs of 2 implants being significantly more prone to mesial ICL than single crowns (RR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.02-2.25; p = .04). ICL was also associated with a significant increase in PD (+0.46 mm (95% CI = 0.04-0.88 mm; p = .03)) compared to implant sites without ICL. BOP, MBLs, and PCR were not significantly influenced by ICL. CONCLUSION: Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.

Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions at 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL ), one (T1 ), three (T3 ), five (T5 ), and eight years (T8 ). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. RESULTS: Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: -0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: -0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL ) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible.

Two short implants versus one short implant with a cantilever: 5-Year results of a randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To test whether or not the use of a short implant with a cantilever results in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants with single tooth reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with two adjacent missing teeth in the posterior region were randomly assigned to receive either a single 6-mm implant with a cantilever (ONE-C) or two 6-mm implants (TWO). Fixed reconstructions were inserted 3-6 months after implant placement and patients were re-examined up to 5 years (FU-5). RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were available for re-examination at FU-5. The survival rate amounted to 84.2% in ONE-C and to 80.4% in TWO (inter-group: p = .894). Technical complication rates amounted to 64.2% (ONE-C) and to 54.4% (TWO) (inter-group: p = 1.000). From baseline to FU-5, the median changes of the marginal bone levels were 0.13 mm in ONE-C and 0.05 mm in TWO (inter-group: p = .775). Probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque control record values showed no significant differences between the two treatment modalities (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Short implants with a cantilever render similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants at 5 years, however, they tend to fail at earlier time points suggesting an overload of the implants. Considering the modest survival rates, the clinical indication of either treatment option needs to be carefully evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01649531).

Clinical and histological comparison of the soft tissue morphology between zirconia and titanium dental implants under healthy and experimental mucositis conditions-A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the soft tissue morphology under healthy and experimental mucositis conditions comparing zirconia and titanium implants. METHODS: Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal position randomized. At 3 months, half of the patients were instructed to continue (healthy; h) and the other half to omit (experimental mucositis; m) oral hygiene around the implants for 3 weeks. Clinical parameters were evaluated before and after the experimental phase, and a soft tissue biopsy was harvested. Mixed model analyses were performed to analyse the data. RESULTS: The plaque control record increased significantly for the two mucositis groups, reaching 68.3 ± 31.9% (mean ± SD) for Zr-m and 75.0 ± 29.4% for Ti-m (p < .0001), being also significantly lower for Zr-m than for Ti-m. Bleeding on probing remained stable in group Zr-m and amounted to 21.7 ± 23.6%, but increased significantly in group Ti-m (p = .040), measuring 32.5 ± 27.8%. The number of inflammatory cells and the length of the junctional epithelium did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both implants rendered similar outcomes under healthy conditions. Lower plaque and bleeding scores were detected for zirconia implants under experimental mucositis conditions. Histologically, only minimal differences were observed.

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the dental literature for clinical studies reporting on production time, effectiveness and/or costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic electronic search for clinical studies from 1990 until June 2020 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Time required for the computer-aided design (CAD) process, the CAM process, and the delivery of the CAD-CAM prostheses were extracted. In addition, articles reporting on the effectiveness and the costs of both manufacturing technologies were included. RESULTS: Nine clinical studies were included reporting on subtractive CAM (s-CAM; 8 studies) and additive CAM (a-CAM; 1 study). Eight studies reported on the s-CAM of prosthetic and auxiliary components for single implant crowns. One study applied a-CAM for the fabrication of an implant bar prototype. Time was provided for the CAD process of implant models (range 4.9-11.8 min), abutments (range 19.7-32.7 min) and crowns (range 11.1-37.6 min). The time for s-CAM of single implant crown components (abutment/crown) ranged between 8.2 and 25 min. Post-processing (e.g. sintering) was a time-consuming process (up to 530 min). At delivery, monolithic/veneered CAD-CAM implant crowns resulted in additional adjustments chairside (51%/93%) or labside (11%/19%). CONCLUSIONS: No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s-CAM and a-CAM. For both technologies, post-processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD-CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD-CAM crowns.