Wir verwenden Cookies ausschließlich zu dem Zweck, technisch notwendige Funktionen wie das Login oder einen Warenkorb zu ermöglichen, oder Ihre Bestätigung zu speichern. Mehr Informationen zur Datenerhebung und -verarbeitung finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Dr. Simion ist Professor und Leiter der Abteilung für Parodontologie an der Universität Mailand, Fakultät für Zahnmedizin. Er ist auch ehemaliger Präsident und Mitglied des Rates der Europäischen Akademie für Osseointegration. Er ist Mitglied in den Redaktionsbeiräten des Journal of Periodontology, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry und Clinical Oral Implants Research. Dr. Simion hat mehrere wissenschaftliche Arbeiten veröffentlicht und hält international Vorträge über Parodontologie, Osseointegration und Knochenregeneration.
Details make perfection24. Okt. 2024 — 26. Okt. 2024MiCo - Milano Convention Centre, Milano, Italien
Referenten: Bilal Al-Nawas, Gil Alcoforado, Federico Hernández Alfaro, Sofia Aroca, Wael Att, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Kathrin Becker, Anne Benhamou, Juan Blanco Carrión, Dieter Bosshardt, Daniel Buser, Francesco Cairo, Paolo Casentini, Raffaele Cavalcanti, Tali Chackartchi, Renato Cocconi, Luca Cordaro, Luca De Stavola, Nuno Sousa Dias, Egon Euwe, Vincent Fehmer, Alberto Fonzar, Helena Francisco, Lukas Fürhauser, German O. Gallucci, Oscar Gonzalez-Martin, Dominik Groß, Robert Haas, Alexis Ioannidis, Simon Storgård Jensen, Ronald Jung, France Lambert, Luca Landi, Georg Mailath-Pokorny jun., Silvia Masiero, Iva Milinkovic, Carlo Monaco, Jose Nart, José M. Navarro, Katja Nelson, Manuel Nienkemper, David Nisand, Michael Payer, Sergio Piano, Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Sven Reich, Isabella Rocchietta, Giuseppe Romeo, Irena Sailer, Mariano Sanz, Ignacio Sanz Martín, Frank Schwarz, Shakeel Shahdad, Massimo Simion, Ralf Smeets, Benedikt Spies, Bogna Stawarczyk, Martina Stefanini, Hendrik Terheyden, Tiziano Testori, Daniel Thoma, Ana Torres Moneu, Piero Venezia, Lukas Waltenberger, Hom-Lay Wang, Stefan Wolfart, Giovanni Zucchelli, Otto Zuhr
European Association for Osseintegration (EAO)
4th Urban Regeneration Symposium
Timelessness in Regeneration18. Okt. 2024 — 19. Okt. 2024Vigadó Concert Hall (Pesti Vigadó), Budapest, Ungarn
Referenten: Edward P. Allen, Matteo Chiapasco, Lisa J. A. Heitz-Mayfield, Giulio Rasperini, Massimo Simion, Istvan Urban, Hom-Lay Wang, Giovanni Zucchelli
Urban Regeneration Institute
The 14th International Symposium on Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry (ISPRD)
9. Juni 2022 — 12. Juni 2022Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
Referenten: Tara Aghaloo, Edward P. Allen, Evanthia Anadioti, Wael Att, Vinay Bhide, Markus Blatz, Scotty Bolding, Lorenzo Breschi, Jeff Brucia, Daniel Buser, Luigi Canullo, Daniele Cardaropoli, Stephen J. Chu, Donald Clem, Christian Coachman, Lyndon F. Cooper, Daniel Cullum, Lee Culp, José Carlos Martins da Rosa, Sergio De Paoli, Marco Degidi, Nicholas Dello Russo, Serge Dibart, Joseph P. Fiorellini, Mauro Fradeani, Stuart J. Froum, David Garber, Maria L. Geisinger, William Giannobile, Luca Gobbato, Ueli Grunder, Galip Gürel, Chad Gwaltney, Christoph Hämmerle, Robert A. Horowitz, Marc Hürzeler, David Kim, Gregg Kinzer, Christopher Köttgen, Ina Köttgen, Purnima S. Kumar, Burton Langer, Lydia Legg, Pascal Magne, Kenneth A. Malament, Jay Malmquist, George Mandelaris, Pamela K. McClain, Michael K. McGuire, Mauro Merli, Konrad H. Meyenberg, Craig M. Misch, Julie A. Mitchell, Marc L. Nevins, Myron Nevins, Michael G. Newman, Miguel A. Ortiz, Jacinthe M. Paquette, Stefano Parma-Benfenati, Michael A. Pikos, Giulio Rasperini, Pamela S. Ray, Christopher R. Richardson, Isabella Rocchietta, Marisa Roncati, Marco Ronda, Paul S. Rosen, Maria Emanuel Ryan, Irena Sailer, Maurice Salama, David M. Sarver, Takeshi Sasaki, Todd Scheyer, Massimo Simion, Michael Sonick, Sergio Spinato, Dennis P. Tarnow, Lorenzo Tavelli, Douglas A. Terry, Tiziano Testori, Carlo Tinti, Istvan Urban, Hom-Lay Wang, Robert Winter, Giovanni Zucchelli
Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc. USA
EAO Digital Days
Implantology: Beyond your expectations12. Okt. 2021 — 14. Okt. 2021online
Referenten: Enrico Agliardi, Alessandro Agnini, Andrea Mastrorosa Agnini, Mauricio Araujo, Goran Benic, Juan Blanco Carrión, Daniel Buser, Raffaele Cavalcanti, Tali Chackartchi, Luca Cordaro, Jan Cosyn, Holger Essig, Vincent Fehmer, Stefan Fickl, Alberto Fonzar, Helena Francisco, German O. Gallucci, Ramin Gomez-Meda, Oscar Gonzalez-Martin, Robert Haas, Arndt Happe, Alexis Ioannidis, Ronald Jung, Niklaus P. Lang, Tomas Linkevičius, Iva Milinkovic, Sven Mühlemann, Katja Nelson, Sergio Piano, Michael A. Pikos, Bjarni E. Pjetursson, Marc Quirynen, Franck Renouard, Isabella Rocchietta, Dennis Rohner, Irena Sailer, Henning Schliephake, Shakeel Shahdad, Massimo Simion, Ali Tahmaseb, Hendrik Terheyden, Jochen Tunkel, Stefan Vandeweghe, Piero Venezia, Stijn Vervaeke, Martin Wanendeya, Georg Watzek, Giovanni Zucchelli
European Association for Osseintegration (EAO)
Zeitschriftenbeiträge dieses Autors
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 3/2024
PubMed-ID: 39283222Seiten: 285-296, Sprache: EnglischFelice, Pietro / Pistilli, Roberto / Pellegrino, Gerardo / Bonifazi, Lorenzo / Tayeb, Subhi / Simion, Massimo / Barausse, Carlo
Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness of three different devices used in guided bone regeneration procedures for partially atrophic arches. Materials and methods: A randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms was conducted. The study evaluated titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFE group), semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh (mesh group) and occlusive CAD/CAM titanium foil (foil group) in terms of surgical outcomes and complications as well as surgical times and surgeon satisfaction in 27 guided bone regeneration procedures, presenting results from 1 year post–implant placement. Results: Complications occurred in seven patients. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the occurrence of complications (P = 0.51), device exposure (P = 0.12) and implant failure (P = 0.650). Surgeon satisfaction varied significantly, with the PTFE group differing from the mesh (P = 0.003) and foil groups (P = 0.001), but not between meshes and foils (P = 0.172). Surgical times also differed significantly, with longer times for PTFE membranes compared to meshes (P = 0.001) and foils (P = 0.006), but with no difference between meshes and foils (P = 0.308). The mean reconstructed bone volume was 1269.55 ± 561.08 mm3, with no significant difference observed between the three groups (P = 0.815). There was also no significant difference for mean maximum height (6.72 mm, P = 0.867) and width (7.69 mm, P = 0.998). The mean marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant placement was 0.59 ± 0.27 mm. Conclusions: Although this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of using different types of CAD/CAM devices, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is warranted to validate these findings.
Schlagwörter: CAD/CAM, dental implants, foil, guided bone regeneration, mesh
The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
Purpose: To establish consensus-driven guidelines that could support the clinical decision-making process for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla and ultimately improve long-term treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Materials and methods: A total of 33 participants were enrolled (18 active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration and 15 international experts). Based on the available evidence, the development group discussed and proposed an initial list of 20 statements, which were later evalu-ated by all participants. After the forms were completed, the responses were sent for blinded ana-lysis. In most cases, when a consensus was not reached, the statements were rephrased and sent to the participants for another round of evaluation. Three rounds were planned.
Results: After the first round of voting, participants came close to reaching a consensus on six statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other fourteen. Following this, nineteen statements were rephrased and sent to participants again for the second round of voting, after which a consensus was reached for six statements and almost reached for three statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other ten. All 13 statements upon which no consensus was reached were rephrased and included in the third round. After this round, a consensus was achieved for an additional nine statements and almost achieved for three statements, but no consensus was reached for the remaining statement.
Conclusion: This Delphi consensus highlights the importance of accurate preoperative planning, taking into consideration the maxillomandibular relationship to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of the final restoration. Emphasis is placed on the role played by the sinus bony walls and floor in providing essential elements for bone formation, and on evaluation of bucco-palatal sinus width for choosing between lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. Tilted and trans-sinus implants are considered viable options, whereas caution is advised when placing pterygoid implants. Zygomatic implants are seen as a potential option in specific cases, such as for completely edentulous elderly or oncological patients, for whom conventional alternatives are unsuitable.
Schlagwörter: diagnostic procedure, implant dentistry, lateral window technique, pterygoid implants, sinus floor elevation, transcrestal sinus floor elevation, zygomatic implants
The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
Purpose: Guided bone regeneration is a widely used technique for the treatment of atrophic arches. A broad range of devices have been employed to achieve bone regeneration. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical and histological findings for a new titanium CAD/CAM device for guided bone regeneration, namely semi-occlusive titanium mesh.
Materials and methods: Nine partially edentulous patients with vertical and/or horizontal bone defects underwent a guided bone regeneration procedure to enable implant placement. The device used as a barrier was a semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh with a laser sintered microperforated scaffold with a pore size of 0.3 mm, grafted with autogenous and xenogeneic bone in a ratio of 80:20. Eight months after guided bone regeneration, surgical and healing complications were evaluated and histological analyses of the regenerated bone were performed.
Results: A total of 9 patients with 11 treated sites were enrolled. Two healing complications were recorded: one late exposure of the device and one early infection (18.18%). At 8 months, well-structured new regenerated trabecular bone with marrow spaces was mostly present. The percentage of newly formed bone was 30.37% ± 4.64%, that of marrow spaces was 56.43% ± 4.62%, that of residual xenogeneic material was 12.16% ± 0.49% and that of residual autogenous bone chips was 1.02% ± 0.14%.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, the results show that semi-occlusive titanium mesh could be used for vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation. Nevertheless, further follow-ups and clinical and histological studies are required.
Schlagwörter: CAD/CAM, guided bone regeneration, histology, preliminary results, titanium mesh
The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
The aim of the present study was to generate an international and multidisciplinary consensus on the clinical management of implant protrusion into the maxillary sinuses and nasal fossae. A total of 31 experts participated, 23 of whom were experts in implantology (periodontologists, maxillofacial surgeons and implantologists), 6 were otolaryngologists and 2 were radiologists. All the participants were informed of the current scientific knowledge on the topic based on a systematic search of the literature. A list of statements was created and divided into three surveys: one for all participants, one for implant providers and radiologists and one for otolaryngologists and radiologists. A consensus was reached on 15 out of 17 statements. According to the participants, osseointegrated implants protruding radiographically into the maxillary sinus or nasal fossae require as much monitoring and maintenance as implants fully covered by bone. In the event of symptoms of sinusitis, collaboration between implant providers and otolaryngologists is required. Implant removal should be considered only after pharmacological and surgical management of sinusitis have failed.
Schlagwörter: consensus, dental implants, maxillary sinus, nasal fossae
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
This retrospective study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes of simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant placement procedures in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous and horizontally atrophic dental arches using resorbable membranes. A total of 49 patients were included, and 97 implants were placed. Patients were followed up for 3 to 7 years after loading. The data indicate that GBR with simultaneous implant placement and resorbable membranes can be a good clinical choice, and the data suggest that it could be better to horizontally reconstruct no more than 3 mm of bone in order to reduce the number of complications and to obtain stable results. However, this technique remains difficult and requires expert surgeons.
In everyday practice, surgeons have to deal with bone atrophy. These rehabilitations are even more complex in the posterior mandible, and it is still unclear in the literature which fixed rehabilitation option is best. The purpose of this article was to help oral surgeons to choose the proper and updated treatment for their atrophic patients. Posterior mandible bone atrophies were divided into four main groups depending on the bone height measured above the inferior alveolar nerve: (1) ≤ 4 mm; (2) > 4 mm ≤ 5 mm; (3) > 5 mm ≤ 6 mm; (4) > 6 mm < 7 mm. Different approaches were proposed for each group, considering patient expectations. If ≤ 4 mm of bone height was available, guided bone regeneration was used as the adequate approach. For bone heights > 4 mm and ≤ 6 mm, the “sandwich” technique and/or short implants were used, depending on esthetics. In cases with > 6 mm and < 7 mm above the mandibular canal, short implants might be the proper option. The authors’ clinical experience and the literature were considered in order to suggest a possible correct treatment decision based on the residual bone height in the posterior mandible.
This prospective longitudinal clinical trial aimed to evaluate the success of a bone-level implant with an integrated platform-switched connection by assessing peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone level. Twenty-six patients were treated in two different centers with implants placed in healed partially edentulous ridges. Implant success rate and marginal bone level were evaluated with photographs, radiographs, and clinical measurements, with a 6-month postloading follow-up. The esthetic appearance of the photographed periimplant soft tissue was evaluated at 6 months via the Pink Esthetic Score applied by two calibrated operators. All of the implants except for one placed in the mandible demonstrated successful osseointegration, resulting in a success rate of 97.8% at the 6-month follow-up. Compared to historical controls, no detectable differences in peri-implant marginal bone loss or esthetic outcome were seen.
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous atrophic arches. A total of 58 patients were included with a follow-up of 3 to 7 years after loading. Data seem to indicate that GBR with nonresorbable membranes can be a good clinical choice and suggest that it could be used to vertically reconstruct no more than 6 mm of bone in the posterior mandible. However, this technique remains difficult and requires expert surgeons.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term performance of anodized surface implants placed in native bone and followed-up for up to 17 years. Success and survival rates, prevalence of peri-implantitis, and the correlation between the presence of peri-implantitis and other clinical and demographic variables were calculated. After a mean follow-up time of 10.4 years (range: 5 to 17 years), 91.7% of 223 analyzed implants were still in function. Periimplantitis affected 63 implants (28.3%) in 26 patients (44%). Eleven implants with peri-implantitis (4.9%) failed. Within the limits of this retrospective analysis, anodized implants appear to be prone to peri-implantitis, mainly in the posterior mandible and in patients with unsatisfactory plaque control.
The goal of this retrospective investigation was to provide evidence of the longevity of machine-surfaced implants placed in native bone and treated with the original two-stage surgical protocol. The observation times of this study covered periods of 13 to 32 years. Consecutive cases were impossible; the patients' ages when treated reduced the number of available people as a result of death, relocation, being impossible to find, or refusal to cooperate. Mean marginal bone loss after 13 to 32 years was 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, survival rate was 97.7%, and success rate was 92.7%. Peri-implantitis occurred in a limited number of cases, with a prevalence of 1.8%. This study demonstrates long-term reliability of machined implants as a therapeutic choice.