Search

Background: Dynamic navigation for implant placement is becoming popular under the concept of top-down treatment. The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for implant placement., Methods: Implant placement was performed on 38 patients using 50 implant fixtures. Patients in group C were treated using a conventional method, in which thermoplastic clips were fixed to the teeth, and patients in group M were treated using thermoplastic clips fixed to a mouthpiece attached to the teeth. The groups were compared to verify whether an accuracy difference existed. A treatment planning support program for dental implants was used to superimpose the postoperative computed tomography data on the preoperative implant design data to measure the entry point, apex point, and angular deviation., Results: The accuracy of group C was 1.36 ± 0.51 mm for entry point, 1.30 ± 0.59 mm for apex point, and 3.20 ± 0.74° for angular deviation. The accuracy of group M was 1.06 ± 0.31 mm for the entry point, 1.02 ± 0.30 mm for the apex point, and 2.91 ± 0.97° for angular deviation. Significant differences were observed in the entry and apex points between the two groups., Conclusions: The results indicate that group M exhibited better accuracy than group C, indicating that the stability of the thermoplastic clip is important for ensuring the accuracy of the dynamic navigation system. No previous studies have verified the accuracy of this system using the mouthpiece method, and additional data is required to confirm its accuracy for dental implant placement. The mouthpiece method improves the accuracy of implant placement and provides a safer implant treatment than the conventional method., Trial Registration: University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), Registration Number: UMIN000051949, URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view_his.cgi on August 21, 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Several devices have been developed to measure implant-bone stability as an indicator of successful implant treatment; these include Osstell®, which measures the implant stability quotient (ISQ), and the more recent AnyCheck®, which relies on percussion for the implant stability test (IST). These devices make it possible to measure implant stability. However, no studies have compared the performance of AnyCheck® and Osstell® (i.e., IST and ISQ values) in clinical practice. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the correlation between primary and secondary implant stability using the Osstell® and AnyCheck® devices., Methods: Ten patients (7 women; age [mean ± standard deviation]: 49.1 ± 13.3 years) with partially edentulous jaws who received a total of 15 implants were included. IST (AnyCheck®) and ISQ (Osstell®) values were measured immediately after implantation and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks post-implantation. Each measurement was performed three times, and the average value was used as the result. The correlation between measurements obtained using the two devices was determined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient., Results: The IST values ranged from 79.1 ± 2.87 to 82.4 ± 2.65. The ISQ values ranged from 76.0 ± 2.8 to 80.2 ± 2.35. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was r = 0.64 immediately after implantation, r = 0.29 at 1 week, r = 0.68 at 2 weeks, r = 0.53 at 3 weeks, r = 0.68 at 4 weeks, and r = 0.56 at 6 weeks. A positive correlation was found in all cases, except at week 1 when the correlation was weak; the IST and ISQ values decreased the most during the first postoperative week and increased during the second week. The IST values were also slightly higher at all measurement points., Conclusion: The ability to assess implant stability without removing the abutment during healing is essential for determining the timing of loading without the risk of bone resorption. The results of this study suggest that AnyCheck® is useful for determining primary and secondary implant stability., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) has facilitated the use of digital workflows for the fabrication of implant-supported prostheses not only for single missing teeth, but also for multiple missing teeth. However, the clinical application of IOS and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in implant-supported prosthodontics remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants for bounded edentulous spaces and two-unit and three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for free-end edentulous spaces., Methods: This study enrolled 30 patients (n = 10 for each of the three groups) with an average age of 61.9 years. Conventional silicone-based and digital IOS-based impressions were made for all patients, and the implant superstructures were fabricated. We measured the scan-body misfit and compared the accuracy of the impressions for single-unit, two-unit, and three-unit implant prostheses with a bounded edentulous space by superimposing the standard triangulated language (STL) data obtained from IOS over the STL data of the plaster model used for final prosthesis fabrication. The scan bodies of the superimposed single-molar implant, two-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the mesial side, two-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the distal side, three-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the mesial side, and three-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the distal side were designated as A, B1, B2, C1, and C2, respectively. The misfit for each scan body was calculated and the accuracies were compared using the Tukey-Kramer method., Results: The average scan-body misfit for conditions A, B1, B2, C1, and C2 was 40.5 ± 18.9, 45.4 ± 13.4, 56.5 ± 9.6, 50.7 ± 14.9, and 80.3 ± 12.4 μm, respectively. Significant differences were observed between the accuracies of A and B2, A and C2, and C1 and C2 (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: IOS and CAD/CAM can find clinical applications for implant-supported prostheses of up to three units for a bounded edentulous saddle. The use of IOS could render implant treatment easier, benefiting both the surgeons and patients. Prosthesis maladjustment may lead to peri-implantitis and prosthetic fracture. Therefore, further validation of the accuracy of IOS impressions is required in patients with multiple missing teeth in long-span implant prostheses., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Self-care and professional care of implants may prove difficult for elderly people who require nursing care. However, the actual state of care and problems remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the actual state of implant problems in elderly people living in their own home or in a nursing home who received visiting dental treatment., Methods: We mailed questionnaire survey forms to 2339 representatives or specialists who were members of the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, the Japanese Society of Gerodontology or the Japan Prosthodontic Society. We narrowed down the respondents to those who provided visiting dental treatment, and analyzed the actual state of implants observed during visiting dental treatment (type, care, problems, countermeasures, etc.)., Results: Of the 924 dentists who responded to the questionnaire survey, 291 (22%) provided visiting dental treatment. While the majority of implant types encountered in the previous 12 months were root-form implants, there were still a certain number of blade and subperiosteal implants. Daily implant care involved mostly cleaning with a toothbrush + auxiliary tools. The most frequent implant problems encountered in the past were difficulty in cleaning and peri-implantitis. Medication and antiphlogistic treatment were most frequently adopted as countermeasures to implant problems, followed by observation. When we classified the results into those for the dentists who provided implant treatment and those for the dentists who did not, we found that many of the dentists who did not provide implant treatment opted for observation or medication, while those who provided implant treatment also implemented removal of superstructure, retightening of screws, repair and so forth., Conclusions: We found that many of the implant troubles encountered by dentists who provided visiting dental care were difficulty in cleaning or peri-implantitis, and that the actions taken against these troubles varied depending on the experience of the dentist performing the implant treatment. Our study also revealed that dentists who provide visiting dental care need to acquire knowledge and skills of implant treatment, to have actions prepared in case they encounter such cases, or to closely coordinate with dentists who specialize in implants.