The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 5/2021
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.8837Pages 863-874, Language: English
Purpose: After some initial setbacks in the 1970s, ceramic implants seem to be a promising alternative to titanium implants. Since the surface of an implant system represents the interface to surrounding biologic structures, the study focuses on cleanliness and surface topography. Clinical documentation of the corresponding systems completes the picture and allows a better evaluation of zirconia implant systems.
Materials and methods: Five different ceramic implant systems were selected randomly and purchased via blind-shopping: Z5s (Z-Systems), ZiBone (COHO), W implant (TAVDental), ceramic. implant (vitaclinical), and BioWin!/Standard Zirkon Implantat (Champions-Implants/ZV3 system). Three samples of each implant system underwent scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging and elemental analysis (EDS). Where appropriate, subsequent Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) was performed to identify the chemical nature of impurities. Surface topography was evaluated, and a search for clinical trials in the PubMed database, on the websites and by written request to each dental implant manufacturer, was performed.
Results: Surfaces of Champions implants (ZV3) and Z-Systems implants were relatively clean, whereas the other investigated surfaces of vitaclinical, TAV Dental, and ZiBone implants all displayed organic contaminations on their surfaces. Four of the investigated ceramic implants showed a moderately rough implant surface. Only the vitaclinical ceramic.implant had minimal surface roughness. Three ceramic designs-vitaclinical, ZV3, and Z-Systems-had clinical trials documented with up to 3 years of follow-up and results varying between 82.5% and 100% survival. TAV Dental W and ZiBone implant systems lacked properly conducted clinical recording of results.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that it is technically possible to produce zirconia implants that are largely residue-free. On the other hand, the variety of significant residues found in this analysis raises concerns, as contamination may lead to undesirable biologic effects. The lack of clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals does not seem to be relevant for the approval of marketing, nor does the lack of surface cleanliness. In the authors' opinion, a critical analysis of these aspects should be included in a more stringent future analysis prior to the marketing of oral implant systems.
Keywords: ceramic implants, dental implants, implant contamination, implant surface, scanning electron microscopy, surface, surface properties, zirconia
The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 5/2020
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6701, PubMed ID (PMID): 32956432Pages 513-522, Language: English
Purpose: To compare clinical and esthetic outcomes between immediately loaded single implants placed with and without a fully guided surgical procedure.
Materials and Methods: Patients with a missing maxillary tooth (second premolar to second premolar) were considered for inclusion in this 1-year prospective nonrandomized study. Exclusion criteria were general health contraindications for oral surgery besides the need for bone grafting or ridge augmentation. One group received digital implant planning, fully guided surgery, and immediate loading (DIL). The other group received freehand surgery and immediate loading (IL). Outcome measures were implant survival, marginal bone loss, soft tissue changes, papilla index, pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES, respectively), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
Results: Two of 21 implants failed in the DIL group soon after placement, resulting in a 1-year implant survival rate of 90.5%, while no implants failed in the IL group. Significantly higher papilla index scores and lower soft tissue changes were found for the DIL group compared to the IL group. No differences were found after 1 year regarding marginal bone loss, PES, WES, or PROMs.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, immediate loading in combination with fully guided surgery might negatively affect implant survival. Immediate loading, fully guided surgery, and a digital workflow appear to have a positive effect on early soft tissue adaptation.
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 3/2020
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.8218, PubMed ID (PMID): 32406645Pages 495-502, Language: English
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present evidence that supports the notion that the primary reason behind marginal bone loss and implant failure is immune-based and that bacterial actions in the great majority of problematic cases are of a secondary nature.
Materials and Methods: The paper is written as a narrative review.
Results: Evidence is presented that commercially pure titanium is not biologically inert, but instead activates the innate immune system of the body. For its function, the clinical implant is dependent on an immune/inflammatory defense against bacteria. Biologic models such as ligature studies have incorrectly assumed that the primary response causing marginal bone loss is due to bacterial action. In reality, bacterial actions are secondary to an imbalance of the innate immune system caused by the combination of titanium implants and ligatures, ie, nonself. This immunologic imbalance may lead to marginal bone resorption even in the absence of bacteria.
Conclusion: Marginal bone loss and imminent oral implant failure cannot be properly analyzed without a clear understanding of immunologically caused tissue responses.
Keywords: biomaterials, failure analysis, immunologic reactions, peri-implantitis, review (narrative)
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2/2020
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7488, PubMed ID (PMID): 32142574Pages 366-378, Language: English
Zygomatic-related implant rehabilitation differs from traditional implant treatment in biomechanics, clinical procedures, outcomes, and eventual complications such as soft tissue incompetence or recession that may lead to recurrent sinus/soft tissue complications. The extreme maxillary atrophy that indicates the use of zygomatic implants prevents use of conventional criteria to describe implant success/failure. Currently, results and complications of zygomatic implants reported in the literature are inconsistent and lack a standardized systematic review. Moreover, protocols for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic implants have been in continuous evolution. The current zygomatic approach is relatively new, especially if the head of the zygomatic implant is located in an extramaxillary area with interrupted alveolar bone around its perimeter. Specific criteria to describe success/survival of zygomatic implants are necessary, both to write and to read scientific literature related to zygomatic implant–based oral rehabilitations. The aim of this article was to review the criteria of success used for traditional and zygomatic implants and to propose a revisited Zygomatic Success Code describing specific criteria to score the outcome of a rehabilitation anchored on zygomatic implants. The ORIS acronym is used to name four specific criteria to systematically describe the outcome of zygomatic implant rehabilitation: offset measurement as evaluation of prosthetic positioning; rhino-sinus status report based on a comparison of presurgical and postsurgical cone beam computed tomography in addition to a clinical questionnaire; infection permanence as evaluation of soft tissue status; and stability report, accepting as success some mobility until dis-osseointegration signs appear. Based on these criteria, the assessment of five possible conditions when evaluating zygomatic implants is possible.
Keywords: criteria of success, ORIS, review (narrative), ZAGA, zygomatic implants, zygomatic success code
The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 7/2018
SupplementPages 11-14, Language: English
The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 5/2018
Pages 420-422, Language: English
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 5/2018
SupplementPubMed ID (PMID): 30109294Pages S9-S13, Language: English
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 5/2018
SupplementPubMed ID (PMID): 30109298Pages S37-S46, Language: English
Aim: To describe general observations of immunological reactions to foreign materials and to realize that CP titanium gives rise to a foreign body reaction with subsequent bone embedment when placed as oral implants. To analyse the possibility of titanium allergy.
Materials and methods: The present paper is of a narrative review type. Hand and Medline searches were performed to evaluate marginal bone loss of oral implants and the potential of titanium allergy.
Results: Immunological reactions to foreign substances include Type I hypersensitivity reactions such as allergy, Type II hypersensitivity reactions characterised by IgM or IgG antibodies that may react with blood group antigens at transfusion, and Type III hypersensitivity caused by antigen-antibody immune complexes exemplified by acute serum sickness. There is also Type IV hypersensitivity, or delayed hypersensitivity, which is typically found in drug and foreign body reactions. It proved very difficult to find a universally acceptable definition of reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants, which lead to most varying figures of so-called peri-implantitis being 1% to 2% in some 10-year follow-up papers to between 28% and 56% of all placed implants in other papers. It was recognised that bone resorption to oral as well as orthopaedic implants may be due to immunological reactions. Today, osseointegration is seen as an immune-modulated inflammatory process where the immune system is locally either up- or downregulated. Titanium implant allergy is a rare condition, if it exists. The authors found only two papers presenting strong evidence of allergy to CP titanium, but with the lack of universally accepted and tested patch tests, the precise diagnosis is difficult.
Conclusions: CP titanium acts as a foreign body when placed in live tissues. There may be immunological reasons behind marginal bone loss. Titanium allergy may exist in rare cases, but there is a lack of properly designed and analysed patch tests at present.
Keywords: foreign body reactions, marginal bone loss, titanium allergy
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 5/2018
SupplementPubMed ID (PMID): 30109304Pages S123-S136, Language: English
The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate reported survival rate and marginal bone (MBL) loss of implants with different surface roughness and followed up for 10 years or longer. For the majority of the 62 included clinical studies, no direct comparison between different surfaces was made, thus our report is mainly based on reported survival rates and marginal bone loss for individual implant brands with known surface roughness. The survival rate was 82.9 to 100% for all implants after 10 or more years in function and the marginal bone loss was, on average, less than 2.0 mm for all implant surfaces included, i.e. turned, titanium plasma sprayed (TPS), blasted, anodised, blasted and acid-etched but the turned surface in general demonstrated the smallest MBL. However, the survival rates were in general higher for moderately rough surfaces. The roughest TPS surface demonstrated the highest probability for failure, while the anodised showed the lowest probability. In conclusion, the present systematic review demonstrates that it is possible to achieve very good long-term results with all types of included surfaces.
Keywords: clinical outcome, surface roughness, systematic review, 10 years or more
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 5/2017
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5495, PubMed ID (PMID): 28334057Pages 1065-1073, Language: English
Purpose: The aims of this clinical study were to retrospectively evaluate implant survival, patient satisfaction, and radiographic, clinical, and esthetic outcomes following single-implant treatment.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-seven patients, with a total of 126 implants (XiVE S, Dentsply Implants), who received single implant-retained crowns between 2004 and 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. Implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBL), changes in implant/mesial tooth vertical relationship, pink esthetic score (PES), white esthetic score (WES), patient assessment of the esthetics (visual analog scale), and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) were evaluated.
Results: Altogether, 59 patients with a total of 85 implants attended a final clinical and radiographic follow-up examination. The mean ages of males and females at implant placement were 19.78 and 22.58 years, respectively. The mean total follow-up time from the implant surgical date was 7.51 years. The 5-year implant clinical survival rate (CSR) was 98.4% (95% CI: 96.3%-100%), and crown CSR was 91.8% (95% CI: 86.3%-97.3%). The overall mean change in MBL was -0.19 mm. No significant differences were found between the different implant diameters (3.0, 3.4, and 3.8 mm) with regard to change in MBL. Mean increase in implant infraposition was 0.13 mm. With regard to esthetics, mean initial and final total PES were 9.61 and 11.49, respectively (P < .001). The mean WES was 6.48 at follow-up. Patients' mean assessment of soft tissue esthetics and implant-supported crown appearance were 73.5 and 82.1 (maximum score 100). At the follow-up examination, the additive OHIP-14 score was 16.11.
Conclusion: This retrospective study of XiVE S implants found excellent survival rates and showed good clinical outcomes concerning patient-centered findings, esthetics, and marginal bone preservation. In context, it is important to stress that this study consisted of mostly young patients with agenesis who were treated by experienced clinicians.
Keywords: agenesis, esthetics, infraposition, marginal bone level, patient satisfaction, patient-centered outcome, PES, pink esthetic score, single implant, WES, white esthetic score