Effect of bone loss on the fracture resistance of narrow dental implants after implantoplasty. An in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Implantoplasty (IP) involves polishing of the exposed surface of implants affected by peri-implantitis (PI). A study was made to determine whether the degree of bone loss influences the fracture resistance of implants with or without IP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An in vitro study was carried out on 32 narrow (3.5 mm) dental implants with a rough surface and external hexagonal connection. Implantoplasty was performed in half of the implants of the sample. Both the IP and control implants were divided into two subgroups according to the amount of bone loss (3 mm or 7.5 mm). Standardized radiographic assessment of implant width was performed using specific software. The main outcome variable was the maximum compression force (Fmax) of implants when subjected to static resistance to fracture tests. Implant fractures were subsequently analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. A descriptive and bivariate analysis of the data was performed. RESULTS: Significant changes in implant width were observed after IP (p<0.05). No significant differences between IP and control implants were recorded in terms of the Fmax values in the two bone loss subgroups (3 mm: control 854.37N 195.08 vs. IP 752.12N 186.13; p=0.302, and 7.5 mm: control 548.82N 80.02 vs. IP 593.69N 111.07; p=0.370). Greater bone loss was associated to a decrease in Fmax, which proved significant for the control implants (p=0.001). Fractures were more frequently located in the platform (n=13). CONCLUSIONS: Implants with more apical bone levels appear to be more susceptible to fracture. On the other hand, IP does not seem to significantly decrease the fracture resistance of narrow (3.5 mm) platform dental implants with external hexagonal connections. The fact that most fractures occur in the platform area indicates that the latter is exposed to more mechanical stress.

Fracture resistance after implantoplasty in three implant-abutment connection designs.

BACKGROUND: To assess the effect of implantoplasty and implant-abutment design on the fracture resistance and macroscopic morphology of narrow-diameter (3.5 mm) dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Screw-shaped titanium dental implants (n = 48) were studied in vitro. Three groups (n = 16) were established, based on implant-abutment connection type: external hexagon, internal hexagon and conical. Eight implants from each group were subjected to an implantoplasty procedure; the remaining 8 implants served as controls. Implant wall thickness was recorded. All samples were subjected to a static strength test. RESULTS: The mean wall thickness reductions varied between 106.46 and 153.75 µm. The mean fracture strengths for the control and test groups were, respectively, 1211.90±89.95 N and 873.11±92.37 N in the external hexagon implants; 918.41±97.19 N and 661.29±58.03 N in the internal hexagon implants; and 1058.67±114.05 N and 747.32±90.05 N in the conical connection implants. Implant wall thickness and fracture resistance (P < 0.001) showed a positive correlation. Fracture strength was influenced by both implantoplasty (P < 0.001) and connection type (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implantoplasty in diameter-reduced implants decreases implant wall thickness and fracture resistance, and varies depending on the implant-abutment connection. Internal hexagon and conical connection implants seem to be more prone to fracture after implantoplasty.

Is measurement of the gingival biotype reliable? Agreement among different assessment methods

BACKGROUND: To determine agreement among the most commonly used methods for assessing the gingival biotype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to a sample of dentists practicing in Spain. The question-naire was based on the evaluation of 5 cases involving different gingival biotype assessment methods. Dentists were required to classify the cases as having a "thin", "thick" or "not able to classify" biotype. Each case was as-sessed using a frontal intraoral photo of the anterior teeth; an enlarged photo of the buccal aspect of the tooth with a periodontal probe inserted inside the sulcus; and the real thickness measured in mm with a calibrated needle. Agreement among the classifications was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 104 surveys were analyzed. The most commonly used assessment method was visual evaluation of the morphology of the gingiva and the teeth (62.5%). Concordance among the three different methods was weak (kappa = 0.278). Agreement among the classification methods was greater in extreme cases (thinner and thicker gingival thickness). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly used methods for assessing gingival biotype are not reliable. The three tested methods show poor to weak agreement, which leads to non-reliable estimation of the gingival biotype

No disponible

Is measurement of the gingival biotype reliable? Agreement among different assessment methods.

BACKGROUND: To determine agreement among the most commonly used methods for assessing the gingival biotype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to a sample of dentists practicing in Spain. The questionnaire was based on the evaluation of 5 cases involving different gingival biotype assessment methods. Dentists were required to classify the cases as having a "thin", "thick" or "not able to classify" biotype. Each case was assessed using a frontal intraoral photo of the anterior teeth; an enlarged photo of the buccal aspect of the tooth with a periodontal probe inserted inside the sulcus; and the real thickness measured in mm with a calibrated needle. Agreement among the classifications was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 104 surveys were analyzed. The most commonly used assessment method was visual evaluation of the morphology of the gingiva and the teeth (62.5%). Concordance among the three different methods was weak (kappa = 0.278). Agreement among the classification methods was greater in extreme cases (thinner and thicker gingival thickness). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly used methods for assessing gingival biotype are not reliable. The three tested methods show poor to weak agreement, which leads to non-reliable estimation of the gingival biotype.

Revisión bibliográfica de Implantología Bucofacial del año 2009. 2ª Parte / Literature review of Oral Implantology in 2009. Part 2

Debido al amplio número de publicaciones que existen sobre Implantología Bucofacial, resulta difícil para el odontólogo seleccionar y leer de forma crítica una cantidad suficiente de artículos que puedan aportarle una información útil para su praxis diaria. En este artículo pretendemos sintetizar la información más relevante que se encuentra en las revistas indexadas de la especialidad publicadas el año 2009 (AU)

The lack of the available time of the professionals involved in the Odontologic field and the difficulty to achieve a good level of information about Oral Implantology, arise the interest of the authors to expose a synthetic review of the publications. This article tries to summarize the most relevant information found in the journals of the specialty published in 2009 (AU)

Revisión bibliográfica de Implantología Bucofacial del año 2009. 1ª parte / Literature review of Oral Implantology in 2009. Part 1

Debido al amplio número de publicaciones que existen sobre Implantología Bucofacial, resulta difícil para el odontólogo seleccionar y leer de forma crítica una cantidad suficiente de artículos que puedan aportarle una información útil para su praxis diaria. En este artículo se pretende sintetizarla información más relevante que se encuentra en las revistas indexadas de la especialidad publicadas durante el año 2009 (AU)

The lack of the available time of the professionals involved in the odontologic field and the difficulty to achieve a good level of information about Oral Implantology, arise the interest of the authors to expose a synthetic review of the publications. This article tries to summarize the most relevant information found in the journals of the specialty published in 2009 (AU)