Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis

Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: a systematic review

“…Today, more than 1300 types of oral implants varying in form, material, dimension, interface geometry and surface properties are commercially available (Binon 2000). In a recent systematic review (Esposito et al 2007b), the question was addressed as to whether there are surface modifications, implant shapes or particular materials that can indeed improve the clinical performance. Based on the available results of randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs), Esposito and colleagues found no evidence that any particular type of dental implant showed superior long‐term success.…”

“…Besides other parameters, implant surface characteristics are factors affecting the rate and extent of the implant bone response as well as the mechanical quality of the bone/implant interface (Le Guéhennec et al 2007; Montes et al 2007). In view of this, within the systematic review of Esposito et al (2007b), there was only limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to bone loss due to chronic infection (peri‐implantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. There was a tendency only for implants with a turned surface to show early failures more often than implants with roughened surfaces.…”

Effect of immediate or delayed loading following immediate placement of implants with a modified surface

“…It has been suggested that such an approach would ultimately reduce treatment time and provide an immediate support to the peri‐implant soft tissues with a possible beneficial effect on the aesthetic outcome (Glauser et al 2006). Indeed, it has been reported that immediately loaded implants present with similar survival rates to implants loaded in a delayed approach (Esposito et al 2009) and when certain loading forces are applied immediately after implant placement, bone formation may be stimulated (Romanos et al 2002, 2003) and the amount of mineralized bone at the bone‐to‐implant interface may be increased (Wehrbein et al 1998; Gotfredsen et al 2001).…”

Immediate implant placement in molar regions: risk factors for early failure

“…Three GBR procedures were used in this study: AB, OM and the concomitant use of AB and an OM. AB has for a long time been considered the “gold standard” grafting material for bone augmentation and was therefore chosen (Palmer & Palmer 1999; Esposito et al 2009). A collagen membrane was chosen because bio‐resorbable membranes have been successfully used for bone augmentation in animal as well as in human studies (Kostopoulos & Karring 1994; Chiapasco & Zaniboni 2009).…”

“…Immediate implant installation can be successful in the short term, which has been documented in several reviews (Chen et al 2004; Quirynen et al 2007; Schropp & Isidor 2008; Chen & Buser 2009). However, in a systematic Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets (Esposito et al 2006), only two studies (Schropp et al 2003; Lindeboom et al 2006) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.…”