Refine
Document Type
- Article (29)
Has Fulltext
- yes (29) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (29) (remove)
Keywords
- Dental implant (3)
- alveolar ridge augmentation (3)
- 3D printing (2)
- 3D rapid prototyping (2)
- Biopsy (2)
- Complication management (2)
- Fistula (2)
- Flaps (2)
- Grafts (2)
- Macrophage polarization (2)
Institute
- Medizin (28)
Background: Recent advances in 3D printing technology have enabled the emergence of new educational and clinical tools for medical professionals. This study provides an exemplary description of the fabrication of 3D‐printed individualised patient models and assesses their educational value compared to cadaveric models in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Methods: A single‐stage, controlled cohort study was conducted within the context of a curricular course. A patient's CT scan was segmented into a stereolithographic model and then printed using a fused filament 3D printer. These individualised patient models were implemented and compared against cadaveric models in a curricular oral surgery hands‐on course. Students evaluated both models using a validated questionnaire. Additionally, a cost analysis for both models was carried out. P‐values were calculated using the Mann‐Whitney U test.
Results: Thirty‐eight fourth‐year dental students participated in the study. Overall, significant differences between the two models were found in the student assessment. Whilst the cadaveric models achieved better results in the haptic feedback of the soft tissue, the 3D‐printed individualised patient models were regarded significantly more realistic with regard to the anatomical correctness, the degree of freedom of movement and the operative simulation. At 3.46 € (compared to 6.51 €), the 3D‐printed patient individualised models were exceptionally cost‐efficient.
Conclusions: 3D‐printed patient individualised models presented a realistic alternative to cadaveric models in the undergraduate training of operational skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whilst the 3D‐printed individualised patient models received positive feedback from students, some aspects of the model leave room for improvement.
Objectives: To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of autogenous tooth roots (TRs) and autogenous bone blocks (ABs) for combined vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation and two-stage implant placement.
Materials and Methods: A total of 28 patients in need of implant therapy and vertical ridge augmentation were allocated to parallel groups receiving either healthy autogenous tooth roots (e.g., retained wisdom teeth) (n = 14, n = 15 defects) or cortical autogenous bone blocks harvested from the retromolar area (n = 14, n = 17 defects). After 26 weeks of submerged healing, the clinical reduction in ridge height (RH) deficiency was defined as the primary outcome.
Results: Both surgical procedures were associated with a similar mean reduction in RH deficiency values, amounting to 4.48 ± 2.42 mm (median: 4.25; 95% CI: 3.08–5.88) in the TR group and 4.46 ± 3.31 mm (median: 3.00; 95% CI: 2.54–6.38) in the AB group (p = .60, Mann–Whitney U-test). In all patients investigated, the reduction in RH deficiency values allowed for an adequate implant placement at the respective sites. The frequency of complications (e.g., soft tissue dehiscences) was low (TR: n = 4; AB: n = 0).
Conclusions: Up to staged-implant placement, both TR and AB grafts appeared to be associated with comparable efficacy and safety for combined vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation.
Background: To assess the influence of ridge preservation procedures on the healing of extraction sockets under antiresorptive therapy.
Material and Methods: A total of 10 Dutch Belted rabbits were randomly allocated to either the intravenous administration of amino‐bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid) (Za) (n = 5) or a negative control group (no Za [nZa]) (n = 5). At 6 months, the mandibular and maxillary molars were extracted and the four experimental sites randomly allocated to the following subgroups: (a) socket grafting using a collagen‐coated natural bone mineral (BOC) + primary wound closure, (b) coronectomy (CO), or (c) spontaneous healing + primary wound closure (SP). Za medication was continued for another 4 months. Histomorphometrical analyses considered, for example, crestal hard tissue closure of the extraction site (C) and mineralized tissue (MT) formation.
Results: Za‐SP was associated with an incomplete median C (31.76% vs 100% in nZa‐SP) and signs of bone arrosion along the confines of the socket. BOC had no major effects on increases in C and MT values in the Za group. CO commonly resulted in an encapsulation and partial replacement resorption of residual roots by MT without any histological signs of osteonecrosis.
Conclusions: (a) Za‐SP was commonly associated with a compromised socket healing and signs of osteonecrosis, (b) BOC had no major effect on socket healing in the Za group, and (c) CO at noninfected teeth might be a feasible measure for the prevention of a Za‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Peri-implantitis: summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
(2021)
Objective: To evaluate the influence of implant and prosthetic components on peri-implant tissue health. A further aim was to evaluate peri-implant soft-tissue changes following surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Materials and methods: Group discussions based on two systematic reviews (SR) and one critical review (CR) addressed (i) the influence of implant material and surface characteristics on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis, (ii) implant and restorative design elements and the associated risk for peri-implant diseases, and (iii) peri-implant soft-tissue level changes and patient-reported outcomes following peri-implantitis treatment. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were discussed within the group and approved during plenary sessions. Results: Data from preclinical in vivo studies demonstrated significantly greater radiographic bone loss and increased area of inflammatory infiltrate at modified compared to non-modified surface implants. Limited clinical data did not show differences between modified and non-modified implant surfaces in incidence or progression of peri-implantitis (SR). There is some evidence that restricted accessibility for oral hygiene and an emergence angle of >30 combined with a convex emergence profile of the abutment/prosthesis are associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (CR). Reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis resulted in significantly less soft-tissue recession, when compared with access flap. Implantoplasty or the adjunctive use of a barrier membrane had no influence on the extent of peri-implant mucosal recession following peri-implantitis treatment (SR).
Aim: To evaluate the influence of the width of keratinized tissue (KT) on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, and soft- and hard-tissue stability.
Materials and methods: Clinical studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases (primary outcome), plaque index (PI), modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding index (mBI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depths (PD), mucosal recession (MR), and marginal bone loss (MBL) and/or patient-reported outcomes (PROMs; secondary outcomes) were searched. The weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for the assessed clinical and radiographic parameters by employing a random-effect model that considered different KT widths (i.e., <2 and ≥2 mm).
Results: Twenty-two articles describing 21 studies (15 cross-sectional, five longitudinal comparative studies, and one case series with pre–post design) with an overall high to low risk of bias were included. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis affected 20.8% to 42% and at 10.5% to 44% of the implants with reduced or absent KT (i.e., <2 mm or 0 mm). The corresponding values at the implant sites with KT width of ≥2 mm or >0 mm were 20.5% to 53% and 5.1% to 8%, respectively. Significant differences between implants with KT < 2 mm and those with KT ≥ 2 mm were revealed for WMD for BOP, mPI, PI, MBL, and MR all favoring implants with KT ≥ 2 mm.
Conclusion: Reduced KT width is associated with an increased prevalence of peri-implantitis, plaque accumulation, soft-tissue inflammation, mucosal recession, marginal bone loss, and greater patient discomfort.
Purpose of Review: To provide an overview of current surgical peri-implantitis treatment options.
Recent Findings: Surgical procedures for peri-implantitis treatment include two main approaches: non-augmentative and augmentative therapy. Open flap debridement (OFD) and resective treatment are non-augmentative techniques that are indicated in the presence of horizontal bone loss in aesthetically nondemanding areas. Implantoplasty performed adjunctively at supracrestally and buccally exposed rough implant surfaces has been shown to efficiently attenuate soft tissue inflammation compared to control sites. However, this was followed by more pronounced soft tissue recession. Adjunctive augmentative measures are recommended at peri-implantitis sites exhibiting intrabony defects with a minimum depth of 3 mm and in the presence of keratinized mucosa. In more advanced cases with combined defect configurations, a combination of augmentative therapy and implantoplasty at exposed rough implant surfaces beyond the bony envelope is feasible.
Summary: For the time being, no particular surgical protocol or material can be considered as superior in terms of long-term peri-implant tissue stability.
Objectives: To evaluate peri-implant tissue dimensions following nonsurgical (NS) and surgical therapy (S) employing different decontamination protocols of advanced ligature-induced peri-implantitis in dogs.
Material & Methods: Peri-implantitis defects (n = 5 dogs, n = 30 implants) were randomly and equally allocated in a split-mouth design to NS or S treatment using either an Er:YAG laser (ERL), an ultrasonic device (VUS), or plastic curettes + local application of metronidazole gel (PCM), respectively. Horizontal bone thickness (hBT) and soft tissue thickness (hMT) were measured at different reference points: (v0) at the marginal portion of the peri-implant mucosa (PM); (v1) at 50% of the distance from PM to bone crest (BC); (v2) at the BC; (v3) at the most coronal extension of the bone-to-implant contact. Vertical peri-implant tissue height was calculated from PM to BC.
Results: All of the treatment groups showed a gradual hMT increase from v0 to the v2 reference point, followed by a reduction from v2 to the v3 region. The S-VUS subgroup tended to be associated with higher hMT values at the v0 region than the NS-VUS subgroup (0.44 mm versus 0.31 mm). PM-BC distance varied from 2.22 to 2.83 mm in the NS group, and from 2.07 to 2.38 in the S group.
Conclusion: Vertical and horizontal peri-implant tissue dimensions were similar in different treatment groups.
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
Material and methods: Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.
Results: Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11).
Conclusions: Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.