Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- dental implants (5) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Aim: To assess volumetric tissue changes at peri‐implantitis sites following combined surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis over a 6‐month follow‐up period.
Materials and Methods: Twenty patients (n = 28 implants) diagnosed with peri‐implantitis underwent access flap surgery, implantoplasty at supracrestally or bucally exposed implant surfaces and augmentation at intra‐bony components using a natural bone mineral and application of a native collagen membrane during clinical routine treatments. The peri‐implant region of interest (ROI) was intra‐orally scanned pre‐operatively (S0), and after 1 (S1) and 6 (S2) months following surgical therapy. Digital files were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format for superimposition and assessment of peri‐implant volumetric variations between time points. The change in thickness was assessed at a standardized ROI, subdivided into three equidistant sections (i.e. marginal, medial and apical). Peri‐implant soft tissue contour area (STCA) (mm2) and its corresponding contraction rates (%) were also assessed.
Results: Peri‐implant tissues revealed a mean thickness change (loss) of −0.11 and −0.28 mm at 1 and 6 months. S0 to S1 volumetric variations pointed to a thickness change of −0.46, 0.08 and 0.4 mm at marginal, medial and apical regions, respectively. S0 to S2 analysis exhibited corresponding thickness changes of −0.61, −0.25 and −0.09 mm, respectively. The thickness differences between the areas were statistically significant at both time periods. The mean peri‐implant STCA totalled to 189.2, 175 and 158.9 mm2 at S0, S1 and S2, showing a significant STCA contraction rate of 7.9% from S0 to S1 and of 18.5% from S0 to S2. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant association between the pre‐operative width of keratinized mucosa (KM) and STCA contraction rate.
Conclusions: The peri‐implant mucosa undergoes considerable volumetric changes after combined surgical therapy. However, tissue contraction appears to be influenced by the width of KM.
Background: The present study aimed to assess the three‐dimensional changes following soft tissue augmentation using free gingival grafts (FGG) at implant sites over a 3‐month follow‐up period.
Methods: This study included 12 patients exhibiting deficient keratinized tissue (KT) width (i.e., <2 mm) at the vestibular aspect of 19 implants who underwent soft tissue augmentation using FGG at second stage surgery following implant placement. Twelve implants were considered for the statistical analysis (n = 12). The region of interest (ROI) was intraorally scanned before surgery (S0), immediately post‐surgery (S1), 30 (S2) and 90 (S3) days after augmentation. Digital scanned files were used for quantification of FGG surface area (SA) and converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format for superimposition and evaluation of thickness changes between the corresponding time points. FGG shrinkage (%) in terms of SA and thickness was calculated between the assessed time points.
Results: Mean FGG SA amounted to 91 (95% CI: 63 to 119), 76.2 (95% CI: 45 to 106), and 61.3 (95% CI: 41 to 81) mm2 at S1, S2, and S3, respectively. Mean FGG SA shrinkage rate was 16.3% (95% CI: 3 to 29) from S1 to S2 and 33% (95% CI: 19 to 46) from S1 to S3. Mean thickness gain from baseline (S0) to S1, S2, and S3 was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.2 to 1.4), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.5 to 1.12), and 0.37 (0.21 to 0.5) mm, respectively. FGG thickness shrinkage was of 38% (95% CI: 17.6 to 58) from S1 to S2 and 71.8% (95% CI: 60 to 84) from S1 to S3. Dimensional changes from S1 to S3 were statistically significant, P <0.017. Soft tissue healing was uneventful in all patients.
Conclusions: The present three‐dimensional assessment suggests that FGG undergo significant dimensional changes in SA and thickness over a 3‐month healing period.
Potential causes of titanium particle and ion release in implant dentistry : a systematic review
(2018)
Implant surface characteristics, as well as physical and mechanical properties, are responsible for the positive interaction between the dental implant, the bone and the surrounding soft tissues. Unfortunately, the dental implant surface does not remain unaltered and changes over time during the life of the implant. If changes occur at the implant surface, mucositis and peri-implantitis processes could be initiated; implant osseointegration might be disrupted and bone resorption phenomena (osteolysis) may lead to implant loss. This systematic review compiled the information related to the potential sources of titanium particle and ions in implant dentistry. Research questions were structured in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework. PICO questionnaires were developed and an exhaustive search was performed for all the relevant studies published between 1980 and 2018 involving titanium particles and ions related to implant dentistry procedures. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for the selection and inclusion of the manuscripts in this review. Titanium particle and ions are released during the implant bed preparation, during the implant insertion and during the implant decontamination. In addition, the implant surfaces and restorations are exposed to the saliva, bacteria and chemicals that can potentially dissolve the titanium oxide layer and, therefore, corrosion cycles can be initiated. Mechanical factors, the micro-gap and fluorides can also influence the proportion of metal particles and ions released from implants and restorations.
Aim: A retrospective evaluation of patients with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome (PLS) treated with dental implants to identify factors that may influence treatment outcomes. Methods: All PLS patients with dental implants currently registered at the Department of Periodontology, Goethe-University Frankfurt (20–38 years; mean: 29.6 years), were recruited. Five patients from three families (two pairs of siblings) with a total of 48 dental implants (inserted in different dental institutions) were included with a follow-up time of 2.5–20 years (mean: 10.4 years). Results: Implant failure occurred in three patients (at least 15 implants). Nearly all patients demonstrated peri-implantitis in more or less advanced stages; 60% of patients demonstrated bone loss ≥50% around the implants. Two patients did not follow any supportive therapy. Conclusions: Implants in PLS patients who did not follow any maintenance programme had a high risk of peri-implantitis and implant loss.
Objective: To compare discomfort/pain following periodontal probing around teeth and peri‐implant probing around implants with or without platform switching.
Methods: Two dentists recruited and examined 65 patients, each of them exhibiting a dental implant with a contralateral tooth. Only two types of implants were included: one with and one without platform switching. Periodontal and peri‐implant probing depths (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) were assessed. Whether implant or tooth was measured first was randomly assigned. Immediately after probing, patients scored discomfort/pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed as angles between interproximal surfaces on radiographs.
Results: Sixty‐five patients (age 69; 63/76 years [median; lower/upper quartile]; 38 females, 11 smokers) were examined. With the exception of mean PPD and PAL (p < .05) clinical parameters (PPD, PAL, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were well balanced between implants and teeth. Peri‐implant probing (VAS: 10; 0.75/16.25) caused significantly (p < .001) more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing (4; 0/10). Logistic regression analysis identified a larger difference between discomfort/pain for peri‐implant and periodontal probing in the maxilla than the mandible (p = .003). Comparing discomfort/pain between implants maxilla (p = .006) and emergence profile (p = .015) were associated with discomfort/pain. Type of implant (with/without platform switching) had no significant effect on discomfort/pain.
Conclusions: Peri‐implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Implant design with/without platform switching failed to have a significant effect on discomfort/pain.