Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration.

AIM: To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Time efficiency and efficacy of a centralized computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing workflow for implant crown fabrication: A prospective controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess time efficiency and the efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing for implant crown fabrication in a centralized workflow applying computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with one posterior implant each, were randomly allocated to either a centralized digital workflow (c-DW, test) or a laboratory digital workflow (l-DW, control). Patients were excluded from efficiency and efficacy analyses, if any additional restoration than this single implant crown had to be fabricated. A customized titanium abutment and a monolithic zirconia crown were fabricated in the c-DW. In the l-DW, models were digitalized for CAD-CAM fabrication of a monolithic zirconia crown using a standardized titanium base abutment. Time for impression, laboratory operating and delivery time were recorded. The efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing was evaluated at try-in and at delivery. Data was analyzed descriptively. Statistical analyses using student's unpaired t- and paired Wilcoxon were performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: At impression taking, 12 patients (c-DW) and 19 patients (l-DW) were included. The impression time was 9.4±3.5 min (c-DW) and 15.1 ± 4.6 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The laboratory operating time was 130 ± 31 min (c-DW) and 218.0±8 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The delivery time was significantly longer in the c-DW (5.9 ± 3.5 1 days) as compared to the l-DW (0.5±0.05 days). At try-in and at delivery, efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing was similar high in both workflows. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The c-DW was more time efficient compared to the lab-DW and rendered a similar efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing.

The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant reconstructions.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether or not one of two emergence profile designs (concave or convex) is superior to the other in terms of remaining cement following cementation of reconstructions on individualized abutments and careful cement removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A central incisor with a single implant-supported reconstruction was selected as a model. Six types of abutments (n = 10) with two different emergence profile designs (concave (CC) and convex (CV)) and three crown-abutment margin depths (epimucosal, 1.5 mm submucosal, 3 mm submucosal) were fabricated through a CAD/CAM procedure. Lithium disilicate reinforced ceramic crowns were cemented with chemically polymerized resin cement. A blinded investigator attempted to remove all cement excess. Thereafter, the entire reconstruction was unscrewed and analyzed for the overall amount and the depth of cement excess. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to investigate differences between groups. When more than two groups were compared between each other, a Bonferroni correction of the P value was performed. RESULTS: Concave abutments presented significantly more cement remnants than CV abutments when the entire abutment area of the epimucosal margin groups was evaluated (CC0 mm: mean 2.31 mm2 (SD 0.99) vs. CV0 mm: mean 1.57 mm2 (SD 0.55); P = 0.043). A statistically significant increase in remnants was detected when the crown-abutment margin was located more submucosally for every abutment studied (0 mm vs. 1.5 mm: P < 0.000, 0 mm vs 3 mm: P < 0.000, 1.5 mm vs. 3 mm: P < 0.000). The buccal quadrant demonstrated the least, whereas the oral and interdental quadrants showed the greatest amount of cement excess. CONCLUSIONS: Concave emergence profile abutments and deep crown-abutment margin positions increased the risk of cement excess. Oral and interdental areas are more prone to cement remnants than other surface areas.

EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short implants in the posterior maxilla to longer implants placed after or simultaneously with sinus floor elevation procedures. The focused question was as follows: Are short implants superior to longer implants in the augmented sinus in terms of survival and complication rates of implants and reconstructions, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and costs? METHODS: A MEDLINE search (1990-2014) was performed for randomized controlled clinical studies comparing short implants (≤8 mm) to longer implants (>8 mm) in augmented sinus. The search was complimented by an additional hand search of the selected papers and reviews published between 2011 and 2014. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. Descriptive statistics were applied for a number of outcome measures. Survival rates of dental implants were pooled simply in case of comparable studies. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing short implants versus longer implants in the augmented sinus derived from an initial search count of 851 titles were selected and data extracted. In general, all studies were well conducted with a low risk of bias for the majority of the analyzed parameters. Based on the pooled analyses of longer follow-ups (5 studies, 16-18 months), the survival rate of longer implants amounted to 99.5% (95% CI: 97.6-99.98%) and for shorter implants to 99.0% (95% CI: 96.4-99.8%). For shorter follow-ups (3 studies, 8-9 months), the survival rates of longer implants are 100% (95% CI: 97.1-100%) and for shorter implants 98.2% (95% CI: 93.9-99.7%). Complications were predominantly of biological origin, mainly occurred intraoperatively as membrane perforations, and were almost three times as higher for longer implant in the augmented sinus compared to shorter implants. PROMs, morbidity, surgical time and costs were generally in favor of shorter dental implants. All studies were performed by surgeons in specialized clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the survey analyses demonstrated predictably high implant survival rates for short implants and longer implants placed in augmented sinus and their respective reconstructions. Given the higher number of biological complications, increased morbidity, costs and surgical time of longer dental implants in the augmented sinus, shorter dental implants may represent the preferred treatment alternative.

Bone augmentation using a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute materials with and without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.

AIM: To test whether or not bone regeneration using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) is comparable to hydroxyapatite/silica oxide (HA/SiO) and to test the effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) as an adjunct to DBBM for localized bone regeneration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each of the 10 rabbits, 4 titanium cylinders were placed on the external cortical plates of their calvaria. Four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: (i) empty, (ii) HA/SiO, (iii) DBBM, and (iv) DBBM plus rhBMP-2 (DBBM/BMP). The animals were sacrificed at week 8. Descriptive histology and histomorphometric assessment using a superimposed test grid of points and cycloids were performed. RESULTS: The mean number of points of the test grid coinciding with bone within the cylinder reached 124 ± 35 bone points for empty controls, 92 ± 40 bone points for DBBM, 98 ± 44 bone points for synthetic HA/SiO, and 146 ± 34 bone points DBBM/BMP. The P-value for DBBM with and without BMP reached a borderline statistical significance of 0.051. However, the area of bone regeneration within the cylinders peaked for DBBM/BMP and was statistically significantly higher compared with empty cylinders (P < 0.05). The bone-to-bone substitute contact ranged between 32.9% ± 21.7 for DBBM, 39.6 ± 18.4% for HA/SiO, and 57.8% ± 10.2 for DBBM/BMP. The differences between DBBM/BMP and controls (DBBM, HA/SiO) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DBBM and HA/SiO rendered comparable amounts of bone regeneration. The addition of rhBMP-2 to DBBM resulted in more favorable outcomes with respect to the area of bone regeneration and to bone-to-implant contact, thereby indicating the potential of this growth factor to enhance bone regeneration within this animal model.

Biodegradation, soft and hard tissue integration of various polyethylene glycol hydrogels: a histomorphometric study in rabbits.

OBJECTIVES: (i) To evaluate biodegradation, hard and soft tissue integration using various polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogels; (ii) to evaluate the influence of arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) on two types of PEG hydrogels. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In seven rabbits, six treatment modalities were randomly applied subperiosteally on the skull: (1) a dense network PEG hydrogel (PEG1), (2) PEG1 modified with RGD (PEG1-RGD), (3) a looser network PEG hydrogel (PEG2), (4) PEG2 modified with RGD (PEG2-RGD), (5) a collagen membrane, and (6) a polylactide/polyglycolide/trimethylene carbonate membrane. The animals were sacrificed at 14 days. Histomorphometric analyses were performed on undecalcified Epon sections using a standardized region of interest. For statistical analysis, paired t-test and signed rank test were applied. RESULTS: PEG1 and PEG1-RGD remained intact and maintained the shape. PEG2 and PEG2-RGD completely degraded and were replaced by connective tissue and bone. The largest amount of mineralized tissue was found for PEG2-RGD (21.4%), followed by PEG 2 (9.5%). The highest percentage of residual hydrogel/membrane was observed for PEG1-RGD (55.6%), followed by PEG1 (26.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Modifications of the physico-chemical properties of PEG hydrogels and the addition of RGD influenced soft and hard tissue integration and biodegradation. PEG1 showed an increased degradation time and maintained the shape. The soft tissue integration was enhanced by adding an RGD sequence. A high turn-over rate and extensive bone regeneration was observed using PEG2. The addition of RGD further improved bone formation and soft tissue integration.