Introduction: An optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes a novel workflow for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile. Materials and Methods: Two randomized groups were selected. Ten control group participants received standard healing screws at the surgical stage. Ten individualized healing abutments were Computer aided Design/Computer aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated out of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) restoration material in a fully digital workflow and seated at the surgical stage in the test group. The modified healing abutment shape was extracted from a virtual library. The standard triangulation language (STL) files of a premolar and a molar were obtained considering the coronal anatomy up to the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). After a healing period ranging from 1 to 3 months depending on the location of the surgical site, namely, mandible or maxilla, a digital impression was taken. The functional implant prosthodontics score (FIPS) and the numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain were recorded and compared. Results: The mean FIPS value for the test group was 9.1 ± 0.9 while the control group mean value was 7.1 ± 0.9. In the test group, pain assessment at crown placement presented a mean value of 0.5 ± 0.7. On the contrary, the control group showed a mean value of 5.5 ± 1.6. Conclusions: Patients in the test group showed higher FIPS values and lower NRS scores during the early phases compared to the control group.
Articles you may be interested inMicrostructure and optical absorption properties of Si nanocrystals fabricated with lowpressure chemicalvapor deposition Stresses and strains in latticemismatched stripes, quantum wires, quantum dots, and substrates in Si technology
Background: Optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes the influence of the residual buccal bone thickness (BBT), measured at the time of implant placement, on the soft tissue maturation during three years of follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight implants were enrolled in the present study. The BBT was assessed at the surgical stage and each case assigned to Group 1 (BBT values ≤0.5 mm), Group 2 (BBT values >0.5 and <1.5 mm), or Group 3 (BBT values ≥1.5 mm). Only native bone and healed sites were included. The tooth height (TH), based on the distance between the buccal free gingival margin at the zenith level and the crown incisal edge, according to the main axis of the tooth, was monitored at one, two, and three years from the final prosthodontic rehabilitation to determine any occurrence of recession or coronal repositioning of the gums over time. A Pearson Two-Tailed test was applied and the significance level set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: For BBT values ≤0.5 mm, the buccal gum at three years showed an average recession of 1.22 ± 0.41 mm. For BBT values >0.5 and <1.5 mm, the buccal gum also showed recession of 0.64 ± 0.29 mm. In contrast, for BBT values ≥1.5 mm, the buccal gum showed coronal growth of 0.77 ± 0.22 mm. The differences between the groups were significant (p ≤ 0.01) at all times. Conclusion: The BBT at the time of implant placement was found to affect the buccal gingival margin stability over three years of observation.
Background: Previous studies have suggested that mucosal height is related to the bone level and soft tissue thickness. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the ratio between the height and width of the tissues around single implants with a conical connection and platform switching. Methods: All patients receiving single implants (Anyridge®, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) and restored with single crowns, in a three-month period, were included in this study. After a provisionalization of 12 months, precision impressions were taken and stone casts were poured for measurements. For each implant, two values were collected at the buccal site: the mucosal height (MH), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the implant to the upper gingival margin of the supra-implant tissue; and the mucosal thickness (MT), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the analogue to the external mucosa point perpendicular to the implant major axis. Mean, standard deviation (SD), and confidence intervals (CI 95%) for MH and MT, as well as their ratios, were calculated. Correlation between MH and MT was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient, with significance level set at 0.05. Results: 32 single Anyridge® implants were eligible for this evaluation. The mean MH was 3.44 mm (±1.28), the mean MT was 3.29 (±1.46). The average of the ratio between MH and MT of the supra-implant mucosa was therefore 1:1.19 (±0.55). The relation between MH and MT was statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01 (Pearson two-tailed 95% CI). Conclusions: Our study found a constant relationship between width and height of the peri-implant mucosa. However, our results are different from those of Nozawa et al., who found a ratio of 1:1.5 between height and thickness of the peri-implant tissues. This may be determined by the different sample and follow-up period, as well as by the implants used in our study.
Masticatory overload on dental implants is one of the causes of marginal bone resorption. The implant–abutment connection (IAC) design plays a critical role in the quality of the stress distribution, and, over the years, different designs were proposed. This study aimed to assess the mechanical behavior of three different types of IAC using a finite element model (FEM) analysis. Three types of two-piece implants were designed: two internal conical connection designs (models A and B) and one internal flat-to-flat connection design (model C). This three-dimensional analysis evaluated the response to static forces on the three models. The strain map, stress analysis, and safety factor were assessed by means of the FEM examination. The FEM analysis indicated that forces are transmitted on the abutment and implant’s neck in model B. In models A and C, forces were distributed along the internal screw, abutment areas, and implant’s neck. The stress distribution in model B showed a more homogeneous pattern, such that the peak forces were reduced. The conical shape of the head of the internal screw in model B seems to have a keystone role in transferring the forces at the surrounding structures. Further experiments should be carried out in order to confirm the present suppositions.
Objectives: A wide variety of approaches have been proposed to manage anticoagulant drugs in patients undergoing dental surgery; vitamin K antagonists and novel direct oral anticoagulants have been used. The present study aims to explore the existing evidence concerning the management of patients in anticoagulant therapy undergoing oral surgery procedures and to give suggestions related to peri- and post-operative measures. Materials and methods: A comprehensive search of databases was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the relationship between direct oral anticoagulants and dental procedures. The present scoping review was realized in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The publications varied from randomized controlled trials (RCT) to cohort trials. Only articles written in English language and published between 2000 to 2020 were screened. The studies were included if discussing the management of a patient in anticoagulant therapy (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants) scheduled for tooth extraction. Results: 33 studies were selected and included in the qualitative review. Nineteen considered anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, six considered anticoagulant therapy with new oral anticoagulants and eight compared patients taking warfarin with patients taking direct oral anticoagulants. Conclusions: No case of extractive surgery should alter the posology of the drug: thromboembolic risks derived from discontinuation are heavier than hemorrhagic risks. Clinical relevance: direct oral anticoagulants are safer in terms of bleeding and manageability and bleeding episodes are manageable with local hemostatic measures.
With the evolution of CAD/CAM technology, custom titanium and/or zirconia abutments are increasingly being used, leading to several comparisons in the literature, both mechanical and aesthetic, to evaluate performance differences between these two types of abutments. Therefore, the aim of this comprehensive review is to present the most recent data on the latest comparisons between CAD/CAM and stock abutment applications. The PICO model was used to perform this review, through a literature search of the PubMed (MEDLINE) and Scopus electronic databases. CAD/CAM abutments allow individualization of abutment parameters with respect to soft tissue, allow increased fracture toughness, predict the failure mode, show no change in the fracture toughness over time, reduce the prosthetic steps, and reduce the functional implant prosthesis score and pain perceived by patients in the early stages. The advantages associated with the use of stock abutments mainly concern the risk of corrosion, time spent, cost, and fit, evaluated in vitro, in the implant–abutment connection. Equal conditions are present regarding the mechanical characteristics during dynamic cycles, screw loss, radiographic fit, and degree of micromotion. Further randomized controlled clinical trials should be conducted to evaluate the advantages reported to date, following in vitro studies about titanium and/or zirconia stock abutments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.