Search

Dental implant therapy is a prevalent and successful treatment, based on research and clinical experience. Ossointegration is the main factor that responsible for success or failure, initially of the implant, and in some cases followed with the whole treatment failure. The osseointegration process is influenced by several factors, among them the surface texture. Dental implants are available with different surface modifications that have been developed for enhancing clinical performances. This paper reviews the main treatments used for changing dental titanium implant surfaces, and compare the clinical performance of different types of implants. Based on existent literature, modified implant surface improves significantly the ability to achive optimise bone-implant contact and improve osseointegration. This review did not find any significant major differences between the surface modifications in use this days in terms of survival and success of specific implant. There are several methods that are no longer in use, due to poor clinical performance in the past.

Fixed implant supported single crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) have become an accepted treatment option for replacing and restoring missing teeth. Recent systematic reviews summarized excellent 5- and 10-year survival rates for both reconstruction types. In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment or between the restoration and the implant itself. With cement-retained prostheses, this restorative screw is eliminated for many reasons: esthetics, occlusal stability, and fabrication of passively fitting restorations. The purpose of this article is to review the variety of implant-abutments available for fabrication of fixed implant-supported restoration and compare between the various abutment forms (screw vs. cement retained).

Replacing missing teeth with osseointegrated dental implants is a predictable technique as evidanced by overall 5-years survival rate that range between 93% to 97%. Few studies, however have adressed the history and frequency of inflammatory complication associated with dental implant. Inflammatory complications are the main cause of failure of dental implants. In this review we classified the inflammatory complications to acute and chronic and to those limited to the hard tissue, to the soft tissue or both. The incidence of the complications is discussed with an emphasis on their risk factors.

Immediate loading of dental implants aims to shorten treatment time. Stability at implant insertion is critical to success. The aim of this prospective study is to compare primary implant stability, measured by insertion torque (IT) with resonance frequency analysis (RFA) expressed as ISQ. Patients requiring implant therapy were treated by teeth extractions, placement of 1-9 MIS implants, bone augmentation as needed and fixed provisional restorations. We measured IT and ISQ for non-submerged loaded (NSL), non-submerged non loaded (NSNL) and submerged (S) implants. 14 patients, aged 34-79 years, were recruited. 53 implants were inserted (38 maxillary & 15 mandibular). 30 implants, 18 in fresh extraction sites, were immediately loaded. ISQ was 63.3 +/- 2.8 (S.E.), 67.2 +/- 3.5 (S.E.) and 58.8 +/- 2.7 for the NSL, NSNL and S groups, respectively (p = 0.0459). IT was 40.4 +/- 1.8 Ncm, 46 +/- 4.0 and 35.3 +/- 2.1 (p = 0.0646). ISQ and IT were not statistically different between extraction vs. non-extraction and augmented vs. non-augmented sites. We found a significant difference in IT between maxillary & mandibular sites, and a significant correlation between ISQ & IT and between ISQ & implant diameter. These data suggest that ISQ is correlated to IT and is influenced mainly by implant diameter and not by implant length, location or bone level. Finally, a case including immediate implants, bone augmentation and immediate provisional restoration is presented.

It is incumbent upon the dentist to restore the form and function of endodontically treated teeth. Different approaches and materials are described in the literature for restoring the missing tooth structure, either with a cast post and core or immediately with a chair-side post and core system. This article briefly reviews the available data regarding the microbiological, prosthetic, mechanical, and periodontal aspects while emphasizing the immediate approach using amalgam, composite and glass ionomer materials. The factors affecting retention of the post are presented to guide the clinician in selecting a suitable post and core system in preserving optimal root structure to prevent root fracture. Two clinical cases are presented in which tooth structure was restored using two techniques: in one, a provisional acrylic resin shell was used to house a dowel coronal-radicular amalgam core material, the other used a copper band for a composite post and core system. Both cases emphasize the ease of production and the short chair-time in the stages of crown fabrication.

Alveolar ridge atrophy can be acquired or congenital. Alveolar ridge augmentation can be performed using bone grafting but a donor site morbidity is unavoidable and some resorption of the grafted bone occurs. Distraction osteogenesis offers an alternative method for bone reconstruction without donor site morbidity and sufficient stability of the final results. In order to place implants, vertical alveolar augmentation using Distraction Osteogenesis has been applied to 14 patients aged 17 to 55 years old with edentulous alveolar ridge, 8 in the mandible and 6 in the maxilla. Vertical alveolar bone distraction was started by performing a segmental alveolar osteotomy followed by insertion of a central distraction device--Lead System (Endosseous alveolar distraction system, Leibinger). After three days of latency period, the distraction was started in a rate of 0.8 mm per day for 9 to 16 days as needed. The retention period for the new bone maturation was twice as long as the active distraction period. After removal of the device, 23 cylindrical threaded implants were inserted. The results revealed increase of the alveolar bone height with new bone formation that was observed radiographically and clinically at the removal of the distraction device. The amount of elevation was 7-13 mm. In follow-up of 6-14 months, failure of only one implant was noted, due to inadequate transported bone stability. The advantages of alveolar bone distraction are: Increase of the alveolar bone height with new bone formation, minimal resorption of bone without the bone graft disadvantages. A long term follow up after the bone height achieved and implant anchorage should be performed in the future.

The present article describes the preliminary results of a short-term follow up retrospective study of 104 external hex, screw-type MIS implants with rough surface that were consecutively implanted in 34 patients. The implants were followed up between 1 to 3 years. 49 implants were placed in the maxilla and 55 in the mandible. Bone regenerative procedures were carried out simultaneously in the time of implant placement in 21 of the implants. A total of 6 implants failed (5.7%) during the observation period, all in the first year after implant placement. Two implants failed in the same diabetic patient, and one in a heavy smoker. Two of the failed implants were placed together with bone regenerative procedures, and another one was with no initial stability at the time of implant placement. This short-term follow up report has shown that the success rate of MIS screw-type implants with rough surface is similar to the success rate reported for other implant systems. However, long-term follow up is needed to verify the long-term success MIS implant system.