Search

Objective: To assess the reliability of implant stability measurements recorded with the Periotest device and to investigate the differences in values when these measurements were taken on implant retained crowns and healing abutments. Materials and Methods: Fifty‐six implants in eight synthetic bone blocks were used to carry out implant stability measurements using the Periotest device by two different operators. Each block constituted an example of bone of density D1, D2, D3, or D4, and two blocks of each density were used. The healing abutments placed were of a height to allow approximately 6 mm of the implant‐abutment complex to be supracrestal and temporary crowns were made to match the dimensions of an average central incisor. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the perio test values (PTVs) at each of the different heights on the implant abutments and implant crowns. Means for each site were calculated and distribution of data assessed using the Kruskal Wallis test. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the relationship between the PTVs recorded on the implant abutments and implant crowns. Results: The mean PTV (±standard devidation) recorded across all sites was 5.57 ± 11.643 on the implant abutments, and 12.27 ± 11.735 on the temporary crowns. Excellent/good inter‐operator ICCs were recorded for the mid‐abutment site in all bone blocks D1–D4 (ICC = 0.814, p < 0.001, ICC = 0.922, p < 0.001, ICC = 0.938, p < 0.001, ICC = 776, p < 0.001). For mid crown sites, ICC between operators was excellent/good only for recordings in D2 bone (ICC = 0.897, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Periotest device seems to be able to reliably measure implant stability across all types of bones when the implant stability is assessed at approximately 3 mm coronal to the implant platform for abutments and 4.5 mm for implant supported single crowns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of an autogenous blood concentrate (L-PRF) with the effect of white porous titanium granules (WPTG) on buccal bone remodeling. These materials were used to graft the void between the implant and the buccal bone following immediate implant placement. Clinical measurements were made at two time points, and the mean buccal bone horizontal dimension at placement was 2.94 ± 0.59 mm for L-PRF and 3.49 ± 0.99 mm for WPTG. At reentry, the values were 1.19 ± 0.90 mm and 2.12 ± 0.87 mm, respectively. Overall, there was no difference observed in the performance of the two materials regarding buccal bone resorption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To answer the following PICOS question: In adult patients with peri‐implantitis, what is the efficacy of sub‐marginal instrumentation combined with chemical surface decontamination in comparison with sub‐marginal instrumentation with or without placebo, in terms of changes in probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing, as reported in prospective randomized controlled trials, non‐randomized controlled trials, or prospective cohort studies, with a minimum of 6‐month "follow‐up". Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Ovid Medline, and The Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) for articles published until March 2022. Data addressing the primary and secondary outcomes were extracted. Results: The search gave 2033 results of which 3 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two studies investigated the use of anti‐microbial photodynamic therapy as adjunct to sub‐marginal instrumentation and the third study assessed the adjunctive use of a desiccant material. A meta‐analysis was not deemed meaningful because of the large heterogeneity among the studies. All three studies showed favourable results in terms of PD reduction for chemical surface decontamination over control approaches, but were inconsistent or showed no differences for the other outcome variables. Conclusions: Adjunctive chemical approaches for implant surface decontamination may offer an advantage over sub‐marginal instrumentation alone, in terms of improved PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the quality and quantity of newly formed bone around rough-surfaced titanium subperiosteal implants stabilized with two different fixation techniques and to investigate nanoindentation as a method for measuring the elastic properties of the bone around these implants. Materials and Methods: Ten 6-month-old white rabbits were used in this study. One femur received a subperiosteal implant fixed to the bone with screws. The other femur received a subperiosteal implant stabilized with a trough (bed) in the bone area, plus fixation screws. After a 3-month healing period, the animals were sacrificed and each titanium plate was resected along with the surrounding bone. Histometric measurements of osseointegration were performed on 16 titanium plates, and 16 titanium plates were evaluated qualitatively (hardness and modulus of elasticity) with nanoindentation. A regression model was used to analyze the data. Results: Subperiosteal implants placed into a trough performed significantly better than those placed on top of the cortical bone in terms of percentage of bone in direct contact with the titanium plate, length of new bone, and percentage of area of new bone. The mechanical properties (modulus of elasticity, hardness) of the newly formed bone above the plate measured at the microstructural level were significantly inferior to those of the mature cortical bone below the plate. Conclusion: Subperiosteal implants placed into a trough performed better than those placed on top of the cortical bone, but it seems that 3 months of healing is not enough to achieve optimal integration and bone maturation around them. Nanoindentation can offer valuable insight into the elastic properties of the microstructural component of the bone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]