Influence of parallel pins on the angle deviation for placement of dental implants: an in vitro study.

The aim of the present study was to analyze and compare the angle deviation of two, four and six adjacent dental implants placed with and without straight parallel pins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and forty (240) dental implants were selected and randomly allocated into the following study groups: Two dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (Ref.: 144-100, BioHorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA) (n = 10) (2PP); Two dental implants placed without parallel pins (n = 10) (2withoutPP); Four dental implants placed with straight parallel pins hT(n = 10) (4PP); Four dental implants placed without parallel pins (n = 10) (4withoutPP); Six dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (n = 10) (6PP) and Six dental implants placed without parallel pins (n = 10) (6withoutPP). The dental implants randomly assigned to groups 2PP and 2withoutPP were placed into standardized polyurethane models of partially edentulous upper jaws in tooth positions 2.4 and 2.6, the dental implants randomly assigned to groups 4PP and 4withoutPP were placed into standardized polyurethane models of fully edentulous upper jaws in tooth positions 1.6, 1.4, 2.4 and 2.6, and the dental implants randomly assigned to groups 6PP and 6withoutPP were placed into standardized polyurethane models of fully edentulous upper jaws in tooth positions 1.6, 1.4, 1.2, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. Afterwards, postoperative CBCT scans and digital impressions were aligned in a 3D implant-planning software to compare the angle deviation (°) of two, four and six adjacent dental implants placed with and without straight parallel pins using the General Linear Model statistical analysis. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the angle deviation of 2 dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (p < 0.0001) and between the angle deviation of 4 dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (p = 0.0024); however, no statistically significant differences were found in the angle deviation of 6 dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (p = 0.9967). CONCLUSION: The use of a straight parallelization pin results in lower angle deviation between two and four adjacent dental implants; however, it is not effective for a larger number of dental implants.

Failure Rate, Marginal Bone Loss, and Pink Esthetic with Socket-Shield Technique for Immediate Dental Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Aim: To compare the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic for the socket-shield technique and the conventional technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone. Material and methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic with the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone was performed. A total of 4 databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 16 articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials, five prospective clinical studies, four retrospective studies, and three case series were included in the meta-analysis. The dental implant failure rate for the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement was 1.37% (95% CI, 0.21-2.54%); however, no statistically significant differences between the conventional and socket-shield technique were found. The estimated mean difference in the marginal bone loss for the socket-shield technique was -0.5 mm (95% CI, -0.82 to -0.18) and statistically significant (p < 0.01), with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The mean pink esthetic score was 12.27 (Q test = 4.47; p-value = 0.61; I2 = 0%). The difference in pink esthetic between the conventional (n = 55) and socket-shield techniques (n = 55) for immediate dental implant placement was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58; Q test = 8.88; p value = 0.11; I2 = 44%). The follow-up time was found to be significant (beta coefficient = 0.023; R2 = 85.6%; QM = 3.82; p = 0.049) for the PES for the socket-shield technique. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review with meta-analysis, the dental implant failure rate did not differ between the socket-shield technique and conventional technique for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. However, a lower marginal bone loss and higher pink esthetic scores were found for the socket-shield technique compared to the conventional technique.