Search

The aim of this multicenter parallel-group randomized controlled trial is to compare, in the same clinical scenario, 6 mm short with 11 mm long implants for the rehabilitation of completely edentulous non-atrophic mandibles.Thirty patients in three study centers received a fixed full-arch mandibular rehabilitation supported by five inter-foraminal implants, with no need for bone augmentation procedures. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio), at the time of surgery, to test (6 mm implants) or control group (11 mm implants). After 3 months, a screw-retained full-arch prosthesis was positioned (baseline). Peri-implant marginal bone level change (MBLc, primary outcome) together with implant and prosthesis survival rate, and biological/technical complications (secondary outcomes) were evaluated up to 5 years.Twenty seven patients were controlled at 5 years (3 drop-outs). No implant or prosthesis loss occurred. No significant intergroup difference for biological/technical complications (p .05, Fisher's exact test) and no significant intragroup and intergroup difference in the MBLc values were registered (test -0.03 ± 0.17 mm and control -0.13 ± 0.32 mm at 5-years; p .025, one-sided Mann-Whitney U-test).When used in comparable anatomic, surgical, and prosthetic conditions, no difference in the clinical and radiographic outcomes between 6-mm and 11-mm implants was observed at 5 years of follow-up. Short implants showed to be a reliable option for the rehabilitation of completely edentulous non-atrophic mandibles. There is growing clinical evidence supporting the use of short implants, even in the case of non-atrophic sites.

This study clinically and histologically evaluated the new bone formation and soft tissue changes when an autogenous tooth-derived mineralized dentin matrix (DDM) graft covered with a free gingival graft (FGG) was used for alveolar ridge preservation, as compared to spontaneous healing. Using a split-mouth protocol, 14 consecutive patients who required two extractions of a single-rooted tooth in the maxillary arch were enrolled. In each patient, one extraction site was treated with DDM and FGG (test group), while the other extraction site was covered with FGG and healed spontaneously (control group). In both test and control sites, implant placement was performed after a 16-week healing period. Compared to baseline (immediately after tooth extraction), both treatments yielded statistically significant differences in some clinical parameters and in the bone micro-architecture within the augmented sites. However, the use of DDM with the FGG created greater new vital bone formation, more newly formed bone, and fewer dimensional tissue changes than spontaneous healing with FGG.

Objectives To explore microbial communities associated with health and disease status around teeth and dental implants. Materials and methods A total of 10 healthy, 24 periodontitis, and 24 peri-implant sites from 24 patients were sequenced by next-generation sequencing. Microbial DNA was extracted and 16S rRNA gene was amplified. Bioinformatic analyses were performed using quantitative insights into microbial ecology (QIIME), linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSE), and STAMP. Results Differences in microbial diversity across three types of sites were not statistically significant. Several genera and species were more prevalent in healthy compared with diseased sites, including Lautropia, Rothia and Capnocytophaga and Kingella. Among diseased sites, Peptostreptococcaceae, Dialister, Mongibacterium, Atopobium, and Filifactor were over-represented in peri-implantitis sites, while Bacteroidales was more abundant in periodontitis sites. Conclusions Diseased periodontal and peri-implant sites and corresponding healthy sites have distinct microbiological profiles. These findings suggest that microbial analyses could identify biomarkers for periodontal health and disease and lead to the development of new strategies to improve periodontal health and treat peri-implant and periodontal diseases. Clinical relevance The study contributes to improving our understanding of healthy, periodontally affected, and peri-implantitis sites which can improve our ability to diagnose, monitor, and manage these oral conditions.

OBJECTIVES This observational clinical study evaluated the patient satisfaction and the clinical outcomes of edentulous arches rehabilitated with overdentures retained by CAD-CAM milled titanium bars. MATERIALS AND METHODS Edentulous patients were treated with a full-arch removable overdenture anchored on two milled bars based on a friction retention system. Patient satisfaction was tested using the validated Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire at the pre- and post-treatment visits, up to two years after prosthesis delivery (possible score range: 0-56. Best: 0). The prosthodontist satisfaction was also assessed through a designed questionnaire (best possible range 0-4. Best:0). Radiographic and clinical examinations were performed at baseline and after 2 years of function. Implant and prostheses complications were recorded. RESULTS Forty (25 mandible) edentulous patients, mean age 69 ± 9.5 (SD) (52% males, 10% smokers), were treated with a total of 185 implants. The mean difference between pre- and post-treatment OHIP-14 score was 20.6 ± 8.0 (P

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of immediate functional loading of implants in single-tooth replacement using two different installation procedures. Material and Methods: One hundred and fifty-one subjects, who required single-tooth rehabilitation in the area of 15‐25 and 35‐45, were enrolled in eight private clinics in Italy. The implant sites were randomly allocated to one of the following treatment groups. In the control group, in which a standard preparation procedure for implant placement and submerged healing of the implant was used, abutment connection and loading of the implants were performed 3 months after installation. In the test group 1, a standard preparation procedure for the implant placement and immediate functional loading of implant was carried out. In the test 2 group, however, a modified implant installation procedure (osteotome technique) was used followed by immediate functional loading of the implant. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up at all sites. Results: Three implants (5.5%) from the test 2 group (osteotome preparation) and one (2%) from the test 1 group (conventional drill preparation) failed to integrate and were removed one and three months after implant installation. The mean marginal bone loss assessed at 12 months was 0.31mm (test 1), 0.25mm (test 2) and 0.38mm (control) (no statistically significant differences were found between the three treatment groups.) Conclusion: It is suggested that immediate functional loading of implants that are placed with a conventional installation technique and with sufficient primary stability may be considered as a valid treatment alternative in a single-tooth replacement.