Frequency of surgical bone augmentation methods complementary to dental implant placement: A study evaluated with cone beam computed tomography.

Background: The success of dental implants largely depends on the quantity and quality of available bone. Occasionally, it is necessary to perform additional surgical techniques alongside implant placement to increase the available bone volume and ensure the success and survival of treatments. The objective of this study was to evaluate, through cone beam computed tomography, the need for supplementary bone augmentation methods in implant placement. Additionally, the study aimed to assess the frequency of such techniques based on gender, anatomical sectors, and types of bone augmentation procedures. Material and Methods: The analysis included 106 cone beam computed tomography images obtained from 77 patients over the age of 18 who sought oral rehabilitation with implants at the University Clinic of the Master's Program in Oral Implantology at the European University of Valencia. Results: A total of 201 edentulous sextants were analyzed. It was observed that 63.68% of the sextants required a bone augmentation technique, and there was a statistically significant difference (p=0.039) regarding the need for supplementary techniques in women. The need for bone augmentation by sectors was most prevalent the horizontal type (48.11%) and in the mandible (29.41%). About crestal and lateral approaches for sinus elevation, there was a higher need for the lateral technique (49.38%), and a statistically significant difference was evident (p=0.015). Conclusions: A high frequency of bone augmentation need for implant placement was demonstrated. It was shown that some form of supplementary surgical method was required in implant placement (63.68%). The highest need for bone augmentation was observed in the posterior maxillary sector, primarily in the vertical type (29.27%), accompanied by lateral window sinus elevation technique (49.38%). Key words:Bone graft, Dental implant, Guided bone regeneration, Sinus floor augmentation, Cone beam computed tomography.

Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of dimensional hard tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation techniques of different bone substitutes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of different graft materials used in alveolar ridge preservation on dimensional hard tissue changes of the alveolar ridge, assessed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. METHODS: A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a manual search were conducted from November 2019 until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials were included if they assessed at least 1 variable related to vertical or horizontal hard tissue changes measured using CBCT scans. After a qualitative analysis of the included studies, subgroups were formed according to the graft material used, and a quantitative analysis was performed for 5 outcome variables: changes in vertical alveolar bone height at 2 points (midbuccal and midpalatal/midlingual) and changes in horizontal (buccolingual) alveolar bone width at 3 different levels from the initial crest height (1, 3, and 5 mm). RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,582 studies, and after an independent 3-stage screening, 16 studies were selected for qualitative analysis and 9 for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significantly (P<0.05) lower reduction of alveolar ridge dimensions for the xenogenic subgroup than in the allogenic subgroup, both vertically at the midbuccal aspect (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-0.20; standard error [SE]=0.26 vs. WMD=-0.90; SE=0.22) as well as horizontally at 1 mm (WMD=-1.32; SE=0.07 vs. WMD=-2.99; SE=0.96) and 3 mm (WMD=-0.78; SE=0.11 vs. WMD=-1.63; SE=0.40) from the initial crest height. No statistical analysis could be performed for the autogenic subgroup because it was not reported in sufficient numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Less vertical and horizontal bone reduction was observed when xenogenic graft materials were used than when allogenic graft materials were used; however, the loss of alveolar ridge dimensions could not be completely prevented by any graft material.

The Association Between Suppuration on Palpation and Diagnosis of Peri-implantitis: A Cross-sectional Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate suppuration on palpation, used as a diagnostic test, in the detection of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 65 patients with 267 implants were examined. Clinical inspection was performed by two blinded examiners: The first measured suppuration on palpation, and the second conducted a complete clinical examination. A third examiner combined the previously collected information with radiographic data and diagnosed the patients according to the European Federation of Periodontology/American Academy of Periodontology (EFP/AAP) classification system. Calibration was conducted previously to the fourth examiner on a set of five patients not belonging to the study sample. RESULTS: When suppuration on palpation was associated with diagnosis of peri-implantitis, the specificity and negative predictive value were high (88% and 84%, respectively), meaning that an implant that was negative to suppuration on palpation had a high chance of not being affected by peri-implantitis. Conversely, the sensitivity and positive predictive value were low (45% and 54%), demonstrating that a suppurating implant will be affected by peri-implantitis in only half of the cases. Area under the curve was calculated as 60.4 (P = .012), and accuracy was found to be 78%. CONCLUSION: Suppuration on palpation alone, as with any other clinical sign, does not allow a precise diagnosis of peri-implantitis. An implant without suppuration on palpation shows a high chance of being free of peri-implantitis, while an implant that suppurates upon palpation is not necessarily affected by peri-implantitis. Suppuration on palpation may be a valuable clinical sign, especially when evaluating implants that are difficult to examine via probing.

Implant survival after surgical treatment of early apical peri-implantitis: An ambispective cohort study covering a 20-year period.

PURPOSE: To describe implant survival at least 1 year after the surgical treatment of early apical peri-implantitis (EAP) and explore potential risk factors of failure of such treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ambispective cohort study was conducted, involving all patients in whom EAP was detected and surgically treated between 1996 and 2016. Reporting followed the STROBE guidelines. The time from implant placement (IP) to EAP surgery (EAPS), the diagnostic stage and intraoperative variables (location, apical lesion in the tooth being replaced, mesial and distal tooth-implant distance measured at the apex, periapical surgery of the adjacent tooth, guided bone regeneration, implant resection, explantation) were recorded to determine their impact upon treatment outcome. RESULTS: The initial sample consisted of 58 implants in 46 patients. The mean time from IP to EAPS was 21.7 ± 10.1 days. At the time of surgery, eight implants presented mobility and were explanted. The final sample consisted of 50 implants in 39 patients evaluated for implant survival after surgical treatment. A cumulative survival rate of 78.3% was recorded. The mean survival time of the EAP treated implants was 85.4 months (standard deviation [SD] 5.94). The diagnostic stage (P < 0.001) and the existence of a previous periapical lesion in the tooth being replaced (P = 0.022) had a significant influence upon implant survival. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative survival rate was 78.3%, with a mean survival time of 85.4 months. The diagnostic stage of EAP and the presence of a lesion in the tooth being replaced significantly influenced the survival of implants with EAP subjected to surgical treatment.

Factors associated with early apical peri-implantitis: A retrospective study covering a 20-year period.

PURPOSE: To explore risk indicators potentially associated with early apical peri-implantitis (EAP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective survey was performed in 2017 with recorded information from patients receiving dental implants between 1996 and 2016. Reporting follows the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines. Data were collected from the medical histories and radiographs: diagnosis of EAP (health/disease), gender, age, type of surgery (immediate/delayed placement), implants placed (position, width, length, location, mesial and distal tooth-implant distance measured at the apex, state of the adjacent tooth and tooth being replaced, and surgical complications. Once the EAP had developed, data were collected regarding days of evolution, symptoms, signs and radiological findings. RESULTS: A total of 2548 patients (57.1% females and 42.9% males) with 8110 implants were enrolled in the study. 46 patients with 58 implants were diagnosed with EAP - 23 in the maxilla (39.6%) and 35 in the mandible (60.4%) - between 6 and 50 days after implant placement, with a mean period of 21.7 days (SD 10.1). The frequency of EAP was 1.81% in patients and 0.71% in implants. Immediate placement multiplied the odds of developing EAP 21-fold (95% CI 6.74 to 65.7; P < 0.001) versus delayed placement. The existence of an apical lesion in the tooth being replaced multiplied the odds of developing EAP 26.3-fold (95% CI 4.24 to 162.8; P < 0.001). Replacing a tooth endodontically treated increased the odds 3.48 times (95% CI 0.99 to 12.3; P = 0.052). The presence of an adjacent endodontically treated tooth increased the odds 0.97-fold (95% CI 0.26 to 3.60; P = 0.963). An apical mesial distance of ≤ 1.5 mm increased the odds up to 5.12-fold (95% CI 2.12 to 12.4; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of endodontic periapical lesions or endodontic treatment in the tooth being replaced, immediate implant placement or mesial tooth-implant distance measured at the apex were significantly associated with increased odds of EAP.

Influence of Hemostatic Agents in the Prognosis of Periapical Surgery: A Randomized Study of Epinephrine versus Aluminum Chloride.

INTRODUCTION: Several variables have been associated with a better prognosis of periapical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of 2 hemostatic agents on the prognosis of periapical surgery at 12 months. METHODS: A prospective study was designed with 2 randomized parallel groups established depending on the hemostatic agent used: epinephrine or aluminum chloride. The analysis of the hemorrhage control was recorded as 0 (no hemorrhage control), 1 (slight but apparent intermittent bleeding persisted after application of the material), or 2 (complete hemorrhage control). At 12 months, periapical lesion healing was determined clinically and radiologically as success, improvement, or failure. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (67 women and 28 men) with periapical lesions involving a single tooth were enrolled in this study; in 45 teeth, epinephrine was used and in 50 teeth aluminum chloride. In the epinephrine group, 28 teeth were classified as successes, 10 as improvements, and 7 as failures. In the aluminum chloride group, 34 teeth were classified as successes, 11 as improvements, and 5 as failures. No statistically significant difference was found. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found no association between the use of epinephrine or aluminum chloride as hemostatic agents on the prognosis of periapical surgery. The efficacy of hemostatic agents at the time of surgery showed no relationship with the healing outcome.

Periapical implant lesion: A systematic review

Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for periapical implant lesion, which makes a patient more susceptible to the periapical lesion, frequency, symptoms, signs (including radiological findings) and possible treatment options. Material and Methods: A systematic literature review and analysis of publications included in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane; articles published until March 2016; with a populations, exposures and outcomes (PEO) search strategy was performed, focused on the issue: 'In patients with periapical lesion to the implant during the osseointegration, what symptoms, signs, and changes in complementary examination manifested, for according to that stage, be intervened with the appropriate approach? '. The set criteria for inclusion were peer-reviewed articles. Results: From a total of 212 papers identified, 36 studies were included in this systematic review, with 15461 implants evaluated and 183 periapical implant lesions. Which 8 papers included more than 5 cases and 28 included equal or less than 5 cases. Analysis of the papers revealed that periapical implant lesion is classified according to evolution stages into acute (non-suppurated and suppurated) and subacute (or suppurated-fistulized). In the acute stage and in the subacute if there is no loss of implant stability, the correct treatment approach is implant periapical surgery. In the subacute stage associated with implant mobility the implant must be removed. Conclusions: Evidence on the subject is very limited, there are few studies with small sample, without homogeneity of criteria for diagnosing the disease and without design of scientific evidence. Currently etiology lacks consensus. The early diagnosis of periapical implant periapical lesions during the osseointegration phase and early treatment, will lead to a higher survival rate of implants treated, hence preventing the need for implant extraction (AU)

No disponible

State of the art and clinical recommendations in periapical implant lesions. 9th Mozo-Grau Ticare Conference in Quintanilla, Spain.

This manuscript summarizes the statements and clinical recommendations in periapical implant lesions, as per the state of the art and expert opinion agreement among the participants in the 9th Mozo-Grau Conference 2016 held in Quintanilla (Valladolid, Spain). The current status of the concept, frequency, etiology, diagnosis, clinical classification, surgical procedure and prognosis are described. If following implant placement localized pain develops in the periapical area, with or without radiographic changes, the diagnosis of periapical implant lesion should be suspected. It is important to monitor the condition in order to identify any change in its evolution. Radiological changes in the periapical radiographs are not always manifest in the early stages, and in this regard small-volume cone beam computed tomography can help us visualize such peri-implant changes. The early diagnosis of periapical implant lesions during the osseointegration phase and the provision of early treatment result in increased implant survival rates, thereby avoiding the need for implant extraction. Key words:Apical peri-implantitis, retrograde peri-implantitis, inflammatory peri-implantitis lesion.

Hemostatic Agents in Periapical Surgery: A Randomized Study of Gauze Impregnated in Epinephrine versus Aluminum Chloride.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate bleeding control is essential for the success of periapical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2 hemostatic agents on the outcome of periapical surgery and their relationship with patient and teeth parameters. METHODS: A prospective study was designed with 2 randomized parallel groups, depending on the hemostatic agent used: gauze impregnated in epinephrine (epinephrine group) and aluminum chloride (aluminum chloride group). The analysis of the hemorrhage control was judged before and after the application of the hemostatic agents by the surgeon, and 2 examiners independently recorded it as adequate (complete hemorrhage control) or inadequate (incomplete hemorrhage control). RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with a periradicular lesion were enrolled in this study and divided into 2 groups: gauze impregnated in epinephrine in 48 patients (epinephrine group) or aluminum chloride in 51 (aluminum chloride group). In epinephrine group adequate hemostasis was achieved in 25 cases, and in aluminum chloride group it was achieved in 37 cases (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome was better in the aluminum chloride group than in the gauze impregnated in epinephrine group.