The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Supplement/2023

Purpose: To evaluate how guided and navigation surgical approaches for implant placement affect survival and accuracy. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. The reviews were refereed by two independent investigators using the following PICO question: population—patients with missing maxillary or mandibular teeth; intervention—dental implant guided surgery, dental implant navigation surgery; comparison—conventional implant surgery or historical control; outcome—implant survival, implant accuracy. Singlearm, weighted meta-analyses were performed on navigational and static guided surgery groups for cumulative survival rate and accuracy of implant placement (ie, angular, depth, and horizontal deviation). Group metrics with less than five reports were not synthesized. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results: A total of 3,930 articles were screened. Full-text review of 93 articles resulted in a total of 56 articles included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Implant placement with a fully guided approach resulted in the following means and 95% CI: cumulative survival rate of 97% (96%, 98%), angular deviation of 3.8 degrees (3.4 degrees, 4.2 degrees), depth deviation of 0.5 mm (0.4 mm, 0.6 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 1.2 mm (1.0 mm, 1.3 mm). Implant placement with a navigation approach resulted in an angular deviation of 3.4 degrees (3.0 degrees, 3.9 degrees), horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 0.9 mm (0.8 mm, 1.0 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant apex of 1.2 mm (0.8 mm, 1.5 mm). Conclusion: Static guided and navigation surgical approaches for dental implant placement have survival rates comparable to historical controls. Accuracy of implant placement does not differ markedly between these two approaches. Keywords: accuracy, guided surgery, implant, navigation surgery, review, survival

Purpose: To assess and quantify survival rates and marginal bone levels (MBLs) of implants placed using guided surgery with a flapless approach vs traditional flap elevation. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library and refereed by two independent reviewers. Data were synthesized for MBL and survival rates for “flapless” vs traditional “flap” implant placement approach groups. Meta-analyses and nonparametric tests for differences between groups were performed. Rates and types of complications were compiled. The study was conducted under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results: A total of 868 records were screened. Full-text review of 109 articles resulted in a total of 57 included studies (50 included for quantitative synthesis and analysis). The survival rate was 97.4% (95% CI: 96.7%, 98.1%) for the flapless approach vs 95.8% (95% CI: 93.3%, 98.2%) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was P = .2339. MBL for the flapless approach was 0.96 mm (95% CI: 0.754, 1.16) vs 0.49 mm (95% CI: 0.30, 0.68) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was P = .0495. Conclusion: The outcomes of this review have suggested that surgical guided implant placement can be used as a reliable method regardless of approach. Additionally, flap and flapless approaches provided similar implant survival rates, but the flap technique provided a slightly better MBL than the flapless approach. Keywords: dental implant, flap design, flapless implant surgery, implant survival, marginal bone level, marginal bone loss

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of one- and two-piece ceramic implants regarding implant survival and success and patient satisfaction. Materials and Methods: This review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines using PICO format and analyzed clinical studies of partially or completely edentulous patients. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords related to dental zirconia ceramic implants, and 1,029 records were received for detailed screening. The data obtained from the literature were analyzed by single-arm, weighted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Forest plots were used to synthesize pooled means and 95% CI for the change in marginal bone level (MBL) for short-term (1 year), mid-term (2 to 5 years), and long-term (over 5 years) follow-up time intervals. Results: Among the 155 included studies, the case reports, review articles, and preclinical studies were analyzed for background information. A meta-analysis was performed for 11 studies for one-piece implants. The results indicated that the MBL change after 1 year was 0.94 ± 0.11 mm, with a lower bound of 0.72 and an upper bound of 1.16. For the mid term, the MBL was 1.2 ± 0.14 mm with a lower bound of 0.92 and an upper bound of 1.48. For the long term, the MBL change was 1.24 ± 0.16 mm with a lower bound of 0.92 and an upper bound of 1.56. Conclusion: Based on this literature review, one-piece ceramic implants achieve osseointegration similar to titanium implants, with a stable MBL or a slight bone gain after an individual initial design depending on crestal remodeling. The risk of implant fracture is low for current commercially available implants. Immediate loading or temporization of the implants does not interfere with the course of osseointegration. Scientific evidence for two-piece implants is rare. Keywords: ceramic implants, implant survival, marginal bone level, systematic review, titanium implant

Purpose: To quantify the cumulative oral implant survival rates and changes in radiographic bone levels based on the configuration of the implant-abutment connection type over time. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase), and records were refereed by two independent reviewers based on the inclusion criteria. Data from included articles were grouped by implant-abutment connection type into four categories ([1] external hex; [2] bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees; [3] bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees or flat; and [4] tissue level) and duration of follow-up (short-term 1 to 2 years, mid-term 2 to 5 years, and long-term > 5 years). Meta-analyses were performed for cumulative survival rate (CSR) and changes in marginal bone level (ΔMBL) from baseline (loading) to last reported follow-up. Studies were split or merged as appropriate based on the implants and follow-up duration in the study and trial design. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database. Results: A total of 3,082 articles were screened. Fulltext review of 465 articles resulted in a total of 270 articles (representing 16,448 subjects with 45,347 implants) included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Mean ΔMBL (95% CI) was as follows: short-term external hex = 0.68 mm (0.57, 0.79); short-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 0.34 mm (0.25, 0.43); short-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 0.63 mm (0.52, 0.74); short-term tissue level = 0.42 mm (0.27, 0.56); mid-term external hex = 1.03 mm (0.72, 1.34); mid-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 0.45 mm (0.34, 0.56); mid-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 0.73 mm (0.58, 0.88); mid-term tissue level = 0.4 mm (0.21, 0.61); long-term external hex = 0.98 mm, 0.70, 1.25); long-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 0.44 mm (0.31, 0.57); long-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 0.95 mm (0.68, 1.22); and long-term tissue level = 0.43 mm (0.24, 0.61). CSRs (95% CI) were: short-term external hex = 97% (96%, 98%); short-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 99% (99%, 99%); short-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 98% (98%, 99%); short-term tissue level = 99% (98%, 100%); mid-term external hex = 97% (96%, 98%); mid-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 98% (98%, 99%); midterm bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 99% (98%, 99%); mid-term tissue level = 98% (97%, 99%); long-term external hex = 96% (95%, 98%); long-term bone level, internal, narrow cone < 45 degrees = 98% (98%, 99%); long-term bone level, internal wide cone ≥ 45 degrees = 99% (98%, 100%); and long-term tissue level = 99% (98%, 100%). Conclusion: The configuration of the implant-abutment interface has a measurable effect on the ΔMBL over time. These changes can be observed over a period of at least 3 to 5 years. At all measured time intervals, similar ΔMBL was noted for external hex and internal wide cone ≥ 45-degree connections, as were internal, narrow cone < 45-degree and tissue-level connections. Keywords: abutment, bone level, bone loss, connection, failure, implant, review, survival