Search

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital complete‐arch implant impressions with prefabricated aids using three intraoral scanners (IOSs) and explore the correlation between virtual deviation measurement and physical framework misfit. Materials and Methods: Four edentulous maxillary master models with four and six parallel and angular implants were fabricated and scanned by a laboratory scanner as reference scans. Ten scans of each master model were acquired using three IOSs (IOS‐T, IOS‐M, and IOS‐A) with and without prefabricated aids. Trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) errors were measured. Ten aluminum alloy frameworks were fabricated, and the misfit was measured with a micro‐computed tomography scan with one screw tightened. Results: Trueness and precision showed significant improvement when prefabricated aids were used for all three IOSs (p < 0.010). Median (interquartile range) RMS errors of trueness reduced from 67.5 (30.4) to 61.8 (30.3) μm, from 100.6 (35.4) to 45.9 (15.1) μm, and from 52.7 (33.2) to 41.1 (22.5) μm for scanner IOS‐T, IOS‐M, and IOS‐A, respectively (p < 0.010). The precision of IOS‐A and IOS‐M was significantly better than IOS‐T when using prefabricated aid (p < 0.001). RMS errors and the maximum marginal misfit of the framework were significantly correlated (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.845). Conclusions: With the prefabricated aids, the accuracy of IOSs enhanced significantly in digital complete‐arch implant impressions. Three IOSs showed different levels of improvement in accuracy. Virtual RMS errors <62.2 μm could be the clinically acceptable threshold (150 μm) for framework passive fit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3‐dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta‐analysis and a single‐armed meta‐analysis were conducted. Results: A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of −99.29 μm (95% CI: [−141.38, −57.19], I2 = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], I2 = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [−14.68, 331.93]). Conclusions: Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete‐arch implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP). Materials and methods: Patients needing CIFDP were enrolled in this study. OI, reference standard, IOS with prefabricated aids, and SPG were performed for each patient. Distance and angle deviations between all pairs of abutment analogs, root mean square (RMS) errors between the aligned test and reference model, and chairside time were measured. The effect of inter‐abutment distance, jaw (maxilla or mandible), number of implants, and arch length on deviations was analyzed. The mixed effect model was applied to analyze deviations and RMS errors. Results: Fifteen consecutive individuals (6 females and 9 males, 47–77 years old) with 22 arches (9 upper and 13 lower jaws) and 115 implants were included. There was no significant difference in distance deviation comparing SPG and IOS with OI (p >.05). IOS showed a significantly greater angle deviation and RMS errors than SPG (median 0.40° vs. 0.31°, 69 μm vs. 45 μm, p <.01). The inter‐abutment distance was negatively correlated with the accuracy of SPG and IOS (p <.05). The chairside time for IOS, SPG, and OI was 10.49 ± 3.50, 14.71 ± 2.86, and 20.20 ± 3.01 min, respectively (p <.01). Conclusions: The accuracy of SPG and IOS with prefabricated aids was comparable. IOS was the most efficient workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 200 26-day-old crossbred weaning piglets ((Yorkshire × Landrace) × Duroc; 6.55 ± 0.62 kg) were used in a 6-week experiment to evaluate the effects of adding probiotics complex supplementation (Syner-ZymeF10) with high and low ZnO diets on the performance of weaning pigs in 42 days. Pigs were randomly allotted to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement and they were supplemented with two concentration level of ZnO with 3000 ppm and 300 ppm and probiotics complex supplementation with 0 and 0.1%. There were ten replicate pens per treatment with five pigs per pen (two gilts and three barrows). Pigs fed diets with 3000 ppm ZnO had a higher BW during the overall period and ADG during d 8–21, d 22–42, and overall period than pigs receiving 300 ppm ZnO diets (p < 0.05), as well as a G: F which tended to increase on d 8–21 and overall period (p < 0.1) and decreased tendency on faecal gas emission of methyl mercaptans and acetic acid concentration (p < 0.1). Dietary probiotics complex supplementation had decreased the E. coli count (p < 0.05) and tended to increase the Lactobacillus count (p < 0.1). Dietary probiotics complex supplementation and different level of ZnO supplementation had no significant effect on the nutrition digestibility and faecal score (p > 0.05). In conclusion, probiotic supplementation reduced the fecal E. coli counts and tended to improve Lactobacillus counts. There were no interactive effects between ZnO and probiotic complex supplementation on all the measured parameters.

Objectives: To systematically analyze the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched on October 25, 2023. Model studies or clinical studies reporting the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement among patients with missing or hopeless teeth were included. Risks of bias in clinical studies were assessed. Meta‐analyses were undertaken. Results: Data from 8 clinical studies reporting on 109 patients and 242 implants and 13 preclinical studies were included. Positional accuracy was measured by comparing the implant plan in presurgery CBCT and the actual implant position in postsurgery CBCT. For clinical studies, the pooled (95% confidence interval) platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.68 (0.57, 0.79) mm, 0.67 (0.58, 0.75) mm, and 1.69 (1.25, 2.12)°, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of implants placed in partially or fully edentulous patients. For model studies, the pooled platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.72 (0.58, 0.86) mm, 0.90 (0.74, 1.06) mm, and 1.46 (1.22, 1.70)°, respectively. No adverse event was reported. Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present systematic review, robotic surgery for dental implant placement showed suitable implant positional accuracy and had no reported obvious harm. Both robotic systems and clinical studies on robotic surgery for dental implant placement should be further developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a common method to increase the bone height in posterior maxilla. Max⁃ illary sinus floor elevation can be divided into 2 types: sinus floor elevation with lateral window approach and sinus floor elevation with trans⁃alveolar approach. The present article reported the anatomy, antibiotics choice, indications, grafting, growth factors, complications and the influence of tobacco on maxillary sinus floor elevation.

Aim: To compare the implant accuracy, safety and morbidity between robot‐assisted and freehand dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: Subjects requiring single‐site dental implant placement were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to freehand implant placement and robot‐assisted implant placement. Differences in positional accuracy of the implant, surgical morbidity and complications were assessed. The significance of intergroup differences was tested with an intention‐to‐treat analysis and a per‐protocol (PP) analysis (excluding one patient due to calibration error). Results: Twenty patients (with a median age of 37, 13 female) were included. One subject assigned to the robotic arm was excluded from the PP analysis because of a large calibration error due to the dislodgement of the index. For robot‐assisted and freehand implant placement, with the PP analysis, the median (25th–75th percentile) platform global deviation, apex global deviation and angular deviation were 1.23 (0.9–1.4) mm/1.9 (1.2–2.3) mm (p =.03, the Mann–Whitney U‐test), 1.40 (1.1–1.6) mm/2.1 (1.7–3.9) mm (p <.01) and 3.0 (0.9–6.0)°/6.7 (2.2–13.9)° (p =.08), respectively. Both methods showed limited damage to the alveolar ridge and had similar peri‐ and post‐operative morbidity and safety. Conclusions: Robot‐assisted implant placement enabled greater positional accuracy of the implant compared to freehand placement in this pilot trial. The robotic system should be further developed to simplify surgical procedures and improve accuracy and be validated in properly sized trials assessing the full spectrum of relevant outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Multiple generations of medical robots have revolutionized surgery. Their application to dental implants is still in its infancy. Co‐operating robots (cobots) have great potential to improve the accuracy of implant placement, overcoming the limitations of static and dynamic navigation. This study reports the accuracy of robot‐assisted dental implant placement in a preclinical model and further applies the robotic system in a clinical case series. Materials and Methods: In model analyses, the use of a lock‐on structure at robot arm‐handpiece was tested in resin arch models. In a clinical case series, patients with single missing teeth or edentulous arch were included. Robot‐assisted implant placement was performed. Surgery time was recorded. Implant platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were measured. Factors influencing implant accuracy were analyzed. Results: The in vitro results showed that with a lock‐on structure, the mean (SD) of platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.37 (0.14) mm, 0.44 (0.17) mm, and 0.75 (0.29)°, respectively. Twenty‐one patients (28 implants) were included in the clinical case series, 2 with arches and 19 with single missing teeth. The median surgery time for single missing teeth was 23 (IQ range 20–25) min. The surgery time for the two edentulous arches was 47 and 70 min. The mean (SD) of platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation was 0.54 (0.17) mm, 0.54 (0.11) mm, and 0.79 (0.22)° for single missing teeth and for 0.53 (0.17) mm, 0.58 (0.17) mm, and 0.77 (0.26)° for an edentulous arch. Implants placed in the mandible had significantly larger apex deviation than those in the maxilla. Conclusion: Cobot‐assisted dental implant placement showed excellent positional accuracy and safety in both the in vitro study and the clinical case series. More technological development and clinical research are needed to support the introduction of robotic surgery in oral implantology. Trial registered in ChiCTR2100050885. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate outcome measures and methods of assessment in clinical studies on bone augmentation/preservation procedures for the placement of dental implants. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was performed on three databases from January 2011 to April 2021 to identify clinical studies reporting on any type of bone augmentation/preservation procedure. The outcomes that have been used to assess efficacy or performance in each study were registered and assigned to different domains (group of outcomes). The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses statement. Results: Seven‐hundred and eighty‐three publications were included. Only 81.8% of the papers had a clear definition of their primary outcome. The rate of complications (59.3%), implant survival (58.2%), 3D radiographic bone gain/change (30%), marginal bone level (MBL; 29%), and histological outcomes (25.5%) were the most frequently reported outcome domains. The most commonly used primary outcome was 3D radiographic bone gain/change (25.8%), followed by implant survival (13.0%). Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported in 15.7% of studies. Differences in the reported outcomes were observed among different types of bone preservation/augmentation interventions (i.e., alveolar ridge preservation, immediate implants, horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation, and sinus floor augmentation). Conclusion: Within the past decade, great heterogeneity was observed among the outcomes considered in studies evaluating bone preservation/augmentation procedures. Three‐dimensional radiographic bone gain/change was the most routinely reported main outcome variable, while PROMs were rarely reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla. Methods: In this case series, implants were inserted immediately after tooth extraction in sockets with buccal bone dehiscence. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) with a papilla preservation flap and simultaneous connective tissue grafting (CTG) was used. The following outcome variables were measured: mid‐facial mucosal recession, probing depth, bleeding on probing, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), marginal bone loss, and thickness of buccal bone plate (TBP). Results: 12 patients were recruited. Stable mid‐facial mucosal level (−0.03 ± 0.17 mm) and excellent soft‐tissue esthetic outcomes (PES, 9.17 ± 0.72) were achieved at 1 year. The TBP at platform level was 2.01 ± 0.31 mm at 1‐year follow up with a resorption rate of 28.90% ± 15.14%. Conclusions: Immediate implant placement using GBR performed with a papilla preservation approach and simultaneous CTG is a feasible treatment procedure in compromised extraction sockets in the anterior region. Favorable esthetic outcomes and buccal bone thickness were obtained. Further studies were needed to evaluate the long‐term tissue alteration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Simplification and standardization of interventions are critical challenges to improving performance in implant dentistry. This study aimed to systematically identify and schematically present the evidence base of the implant dentistry surgical interventions for the anterior maxilla as a basis for further development and standardization. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Primary clinical studies reporting surgical interventions in the anterior maxilla, with a sample size of at least ten patients, were included. Bibliometric information and study details were extracted. Descriptive analysis and a mind map approach were used to describe the documentation of different surgical interventions. Results: Two hundred and seventy‐two studies reporting on 9001 patients were included. Within the past two decades, the number of literatures on implant placement in the anterior maxilla has increased dramatically (7 studies before 2005, 151 studies after 2016). Overall, the evidence map identified six primary operations and 33 variations. For hopeless tooth extraction, immediate implant placement was the most frequently reported (141 studies, 4670 patients); flapless implant placement with hard tissue augmentation and immediate provisionalization was the most commonly reported variation (33 studies, 987 patients). Type 3/4 implant placement (62 studies, 1902 patients) and implant site augmentation (33 studies, 788 patients) were frequently reported for missing teeth. Geographical differences were observed, with type 2 placement studies almost exclusively from Europe. Conclusions: Research on immediate implant placement was the most reported surgical intervention in the anterior maxilla. Hard tissue augmentation was frequently reported simultaneously with or before implant placement. Immediate provisionalization was mainly used for type 1 implant placement. The finding that six primary operations with 33 variations have been reported indicates the need for additional research to simplify and consolidate the surgical approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Analysis of distribution of p‐values of continuous differences between test and controls after randomization provides evidence of unintentional error, non‐random sampling, or data fabrication in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed evidence of highly unusual distributions of baseline characteristics of subjects enrolled in clinical trials in implant dentistry. Materials and methods: RCTs published between 2005 and 2020 were systematically searched in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Baseline patient data were extracted from full text articles by two independent assessors. The hypothesis of non‐random sampling was tested by comparing the expected and the observed distribution of the p‐values of differences between test and controls after randomization. Results: One‐thousand five‐hundred and thirty‐eight unique RCTs were identified, of which 409 (26.6%) did not report baseline characteristics of the population, and 671 (43.6%) reported data in forms other than mean and standard deviation and could not be used to assess their random sampling. Four‐hundred and fifty‐eight trials with 1449 baseline variables in the form of mean and standard deviation were assessed. The study observed an over‐representation of very small p‐values [<.001, 1.38%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–2.12 compared to the expected 0.10%, 95% CI 0.00–0.26]. No evidence of over‐representation of larger p‐values was observed. Unusual distributions were present in 2.38% of RCTs and more frequent in non‐registered trials, in studies supported by non‐industry funding, and in multi‐centre RCTs. Conclusions: The inability to assess random sampling due to insufficient reporting in 26.6% of trials requires attention. In trials reporting suitable baseline data, unusual distributions were uncommon, and no evidence of data fabrication was detected, but there was evidence of non‐random sampling. Continued efforts are necessary to ensure high integrity and trust in the evidence base of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]