Factors Affecting Implant Surface Roughness and Platform Alterations After Implantoplasty: An In Vitro Study Simulating Different Clinical Scenarios.

Purpose: To determine which clinical factors might affect the postimplantoplasty presence of residual threads, platform alterations, and level of surface roughness. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 implants were placed in 20 resin models (10 edentulous maxillary models and 10 partially dentate mandibular models), and 5-mm peri-implant bone defects were created. These models were then placed in simulation mannequins. A single researcher performed the implantoplasties, which were divided into the following groups: favorable situation (FS; maxillary incisors without adjacent teeth), unfavorable situation (US; mandibular molars with adjacent teeth), crown (C; mandibular premolars with a prosthetic crown and adjacent teeth), and noncrown (NC; mandibular premolars with adjacent teeth and without a prosthetic crown). The presence of residual threads, gaps in the implant-abutment interface, and silicone debris was assessed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the surface roughness (Sa and Sz) was analyzed with a confocal optical microscope. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was conducted. Results: The postimplantoplasty surfaces were significantly smoother than the original implant surfaces. The surface roughness was significantly higher in the US group than in the FS group. Gaps in the implant-abutment interface were infrequent (6.67%; 95% CI = 2.62 to 15.93) and only appeared in the posterior zone. The odds ratio for the presence of residual threads and silicone debris (US group vs FS group) was 7.1 (95% CI = 4.15 to 12.14; P < .001) and 5.53 (95% CI = 3.21 to 9.53; P < .001), respectively. When a prosthetic crown was present, residual threads were 7 times more likely to be found (OR = 7.0; 95% CI = 3.5 to 13.99; P < .001). Conclusions: Implantoplasty leads to a significant reduction in the surface roughness of implants but is affected by several variables. Performing implantoplasty on posterior mandibular implants with adjacent teeth seems to be more challenging compared to implants placed in the anterior region of a fully edentulous maxilla. The presence of a prosthetic crown should also be considered as a relevant factor. Furthermore, implantoplasty can sometimes cause gaps in the implant-abutment interface and an accumulation of silicone debris, especially in areas with limited access.

The Influence of Implantoplasty on Surface Roughness, Biofilm Formation, and Biocompatibility of Titanium Implants: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: A review was done to evaluate the effect of implantoplasty on surface roughness, biofilm formation, and biocompatibility of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were done in PubMed (OVID), Scopus, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library to identify all relevant articles published until April 2020. All publications evaluating changes in implant surfaces after implantoplasty were included. The primary outcome variable was roughness of the implant surface. Secondary outcome variables were biofilm elimination and regrowth, changes in surface elements, and cell viability. RESULTS: A total of 11 in vitro studies and two in vivo publications were included. Implantoplasty reduced surface roughness of the implant. The final outcome depended on the bur protocol, with tungsten carbide burs providing the smoothest surfaces, followed by silicone polishers. Implantoplasty did not affect cell viability, and roughness was inversely correlated to human gingival fibroblast growth. The technique also proved effective in removing biofilm and preventing its regrowth. CONCLUSION: Implantoplasty reduces the surface roughness of dental implants, which in turn inhibits biofilm formation without affecting the biocompatibility of titanium implants. Since most of the included studies were done in an in vitro setting, further clinical trials are necessary to confirm these outcomes.

Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study is to assess which vertical bone augmentation techniques are most effective for restoring atrophic posterior areas of the mandible with dental implants and compare these procedures with alternative treatments. METHODS: Electronic literature searches in PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid, and the Cochrane Library were conducted to identify all relevant articles published up to July 1, 2015. Eligibility was based on inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. The primary outcome variables were implant and prosthetic failure. After data extraction, meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Out of 527 potentially eligible papers, 14 randomized clinical trials were included. Out of these 14 studies, four trials assessed short implants (5 to 8 mm) as an alternative to vertical bone augmentation in sites with a residual ridge height of 5 to 8 mm. No statistically significant differences were found in implant (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 3.31; P = 0.98; I2: 0%) or prosthetic failure (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.96; P = 0.43; I2: 0%) after 12 months of loading. However, complications at treated sites increased with the augmentation procedures (OR: 8.33; 95% CI: 3.85 to 20.0; P <0.001; I2: 0%). There was no evidence of any vertical augmentation procedure being of greater benefit than any other for the primary outcomes (implant and prosthetic failure). CONCLUSIONS: Short implants in the posterior area of the mandible seem to be preferable to vertical augmentation procedures, which present similar implant and prosthetic failure rates but greater morbidity. All the vertical augmentation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results.

Aesthetic perception of single implants placed in the anterior zone. A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Several aesthetic indexes have been described to assess implant aesthetics. The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic assessment made by dental professionals and students of single-tooth implants placed in the upper incisors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study using a subjective questionnaire to assess the aesthetics in 3 implant supported single-tooth cases in the anterior maxilla was performed. The interviewed subjects were divided into 4 groups: dentists with experience in implant treatment, dentists without experience in implants and 3rd and 5th year dental students. The questionnaire consisted of 2 visual analogue scales (VAS) to evaluate aesthetics, the pink esthetic score (PES), the white esthetic score (WES) and the simplified papilla index (PI). RESULTS: One-hundred dentists and one-hundred dental students filled the aesthetic assessment questionnaire. The results showed that the subjects were more critical than reference values, specially concerning prosthetic issues. The differences between groups were more obvious in the case with the best result. On the other hand, few differences were detected in the remaining cases. Regarding soft tissue and crown features, experienced dentists in implant dentistry were the most demanding. Cronbach's Alpha showed values ≥ 0,8 in the questionnaire in every case, which indicates an adequate reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists and dental students have different opinions when assessing aesthetics of single tooth implant supported cases. Experience and area of expertise seem to influence the evaluation of aesthetics in the anterior region