Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs) preventing osteoporosis, treating periodontal defects and enhancing bone formation around alloplastic materials implanted in bone. (

Objectives The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant‐retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health‐related quality of life (e.g., SF‐36). Materials and methods The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made and approved. Results Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetics of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and the surrounding mucosa. Implant neck design, restorative material, or use of a provisional restoration did not influence patients’ ratings. Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis. Both immediate provisionalization and conventional loading receive positive patient‐reported outcomes. Conclusions Patient‐reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients’ satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.

The purpose of this review is to describe commonly used dental implants with reference to their material composition, design factors, and surface topographies. The review includes a discussion of the biological principle of osseointegration and how this process of bone-implant interaction is influenced by different implant materials, designs, and surface characteristics

Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) induced bone regeneration and osseointegration was evaluated in bony defects created within the hollow chamber of endosseous dental implants in 14 foxhound dogs. Bilateral extractions of mandibular premolars were performed and surgical implantation of 104 hollow cylinder implants followed after 8 weeks of healing. Experimental implants had their hollow chamber filled with 20 microg of rhBMP-2 delivered with a bovine collagen carrier, whereas the control implants had their apical chamber left empty. Dogs were followed for 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Histomorphometric evaluation and immunohistochemical analysis were performed. Minimal bone was regenerated at 2 weeks for both groups. At 4 weeks, bone fill averaged 23.48% for the rhBMP-2 and 5.98% for the control group (P<0.05). At 8 weeks, mean bone fill was 20.94% and 7.75% for the rhBMP-2 and the controls, respectively (P<0.05). At 12 weeks, mean bone fill was 31.39% and 24.31% for the rhBMP-2 and control implants, respectively (P>0.05). Bone-implant contact (BIC) increased for both groups over time and at 8 weeks the rhBMP-2 BIC value was 18.65% and for the control 7.22% (P<0.05). At 12 weeks, the BIC was 43.78% and 21.05% for the rhBMP-2 and the control group, respectively (P<0.05). Immunohistochemical staining for type II collagen was positive only for parts of the collagen carrier and formation of cartilaginous intermediate was not observed in any of the specimens. The results suggest that, in confined defects adjacent to dental implants, rhBMP-2 can induce bone regeneration in close apposition to the implant surface.

The results from the pullout test support the potential role of rhBMP-2 in clinical applications by promoting a biomechanically mature interface at 12 weeks. However, radiographic and periotest assessment of the bone-implant interface did not provide evidence of the differences observed with biomechanical testing.