Early bone healing to implants with different surface characteristics. A pre‐clinical in vivo study

Abrahamsson, Ingemar; Almohandes, Ahmed; Dionigi, Carlotta; Berglundh, Tord

doi:10.1111/clr.14041

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surface roughness has not been proved to prevent MBL [ 76 , 77 ] nor the onset of peri-implantitis [ 78 ], but patient-related factors such as a history of periodontitis and smoking are deemed to be more clinically important for MBL [ 79 ]. Surprisingly, recently, in a pre-clinical model, it has been suggested that acid-etched surfaces enhance the early formation of bone-to-implant contact [ 80 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

Emfietzoglou,

Dereka

2024

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short dental implants have been proposed as an alternative treatment option to bone regeneration procedures for the rehabilitation of resorbed alveolar ridges. The aim of this paper was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (>6 mm) in atrophic alveolar ridges in terms of implant survival rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), prevalence of peri-implantitis and technical complications. A thorough electronic search was performed until September 2023. RCTs with follow-up of at least 1-year post-loading comparing short implants with rough surfaces to longer implants in the posterior jaws of systemically and periodontally healthy, partially edentulous adults were considered. Studies with incomplete information on the number of patients, follow-up or definition of “short implants” were excluded. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used for Risk of bias assessment. Fixed-effects meta-analysis of the selected studies was applied to compare the outcome variables. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed, on the basis of within-study comparisons. In total, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis and incorporated 408 short implants and 475 longer implants inserted in 317 and 388 patients, respectively. The survival rates of longer implants in pristine or augmented bone were significantly increased compared to short implants (95%CI: 2–5%, p < 0.001). Standard-length implants displayed increased, although non-statistically significant MBL (95%CI: −0.17–0.04, p > 0.05), and prevalence of peri-implantitis (95%CI: 0–5%, p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between short and long implants in terms of technical complications (implant-level 95%CI: −4–6%, p > 0.05). Short implants represent a promising alternative treatment option for the rehabilitation of posterior jaws to avoid additional bone augmentation procedures. Nonetheless, they should be selected cautiously due to a potentially limited survival rate compared to longer implants. A major limitation of this study is the variability in the included studies regarding sample size, patient profile, type of bone, loading protocol, definition of peri-implantitis, among others. This study received no external funding. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023485514).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

Emfietzoglou,

Dereka

2024

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Histological evaluation of osseointegration between conventional and novel bone‐level tapered implants in healed bone—A preclinical study

Imber,

Roccuzzo,

Irani

et al. 2024

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo histologically compare osseointegration and crestal bone healing between newly introduced tapered, self‐cutting bone‐level test implants and tapered bone‐level control implants in sites with fully healed sites.MethodsSixty‐six implants (33 test, 33 control) were placed 1 mm subcrestally in a minipig model and underwent qualitative histologic and quantitative histometric analyses after 3, 6 and 12 weeks of submerged healing. The primary and secondary outcomes were the bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) and first bone‐to‐implant contact (fBIC). Outcomes between the test and control implants were statistically compared.ResultsThe BIC values of the test implants were comparable and non‐inferior over the time points studied, except for the 12 weeks time point which showed statistically significantly higher BIC values of the test (88.07 ± 5.35%) compared to the control implants (80.88 ± 7.51%) (p = .010). Similarly comparable and non‐inferior were the fBIC values, except for the 6‐week outcome, which showed statistically higher values for the test (−546.5 ± 450.80 μm) compared to the control implants (−75.7 ± 100.59 μm). fBIC results for the test implants were qualitatively more stable and consistent between test time points.ConclusionNovel self‐cutting bone‐level test implants demonstrated superior osseointegration and similar bone levels compared to conventional bone‐level implants after a healing period of 12 weeks in healed ridges.

show abstract

Early bone healing to implants with different surface characteristics. A pre‐clinical in vivo study

Cited by 2 publications

References 40 publications

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs

Histological evaluation of osseointegration between conventional and novel bone‐level tapered implants in healed bone—A preclinical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About