International Journal of Oral Implantology, 01/2024

Purpose: To assess the implant failure rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants affected by peri-implantitis that received surgical treatment. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted of three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify studies that examined implant failure and biological outcomes after surgical peri-implantitis treatment, including ≥ 10 patients and reporting on a follow-up period of at least 12 months. Data and risk of bias were assessed qualitatively and quantitively. Surgical modalities were subdivided into reconstructive, non-reconstructive and combined. Meta-analyses were performed for implant failure, marginal bone level and probing pocket depth at 12 and 36 months with the respective subset of available data for each time and endpoint. Results: A total of 45 studies with 3,463 treated implants were included in the quantitative evaluation. Meta-analyses revealed low implant failure rates of 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.4%, −2.1%) and 4.2% (95% confidence interval 1.0%, −8.8%) at 12 and 36 months, respectively. No significant difference between the subgroups was observed at 12 months. At 36 months, reconstructive modalities showed a significantly lower implant failure rate (1.0%; 95% confidence interval 0.0%, 5.0%; P = 0.04, χ2(1) = 4.1) compared to non-reconstructive modalities (8.0%; 95% confidence interval 2.0%, 18.0%). The mean probing pocket depth was 3.71 mm (95% confidence interval 3.48, 3.94 mm) at 12 months and 3.63 mm (95% confidence interval 3.02, 4.24 mm) at 36 months. The mean marginal bone loss was 3.31 mm (95% confidence interval 2.89, 3.74 mm) at 12 months and 2.38 mm (95% confidence interval 1.01, 3.74 mm) at 36 months. No significant differences between the modalities were observed for bleeding on probing after either of these time points. Cumulative interventions during supportive therapy were reported in 9% of the studies. Conclusion: Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis results in a low implant failure rate in the short and medium term. No differences were noted between the different interventions with regard to failure rate. Surrogate therapeutic endpoints were improved after treatment, without significant differences between the different modalities. Therapeutic success and/or disease resolution and cumulative interventions during supportive therapy are seldom reported in the literature, but limited long-term outcomes are documented consistently. Keywords: failure, non-reconstructive therapy, peri-implantitis, reconstructive therapy, surgical procedure The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

Purpose: To systematically screen and summarise the available literature on when and how often it is advisable to perform supportive peri-implant care on implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses to maintain peri-implant health. Materials and methods: The authors employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes tool. A literature search was conducted on PubMed for randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies, reporting results on supportive peri-implant care for full-arch dental prostheses with a follow-up period of at least 1 year. The studies were selected in a blind process with an agreement rate of 100%. For all the included studies, quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: The application of the search terms on PubMed led to the selection of 915 results. Only 11 studies were included in the review. Eight of these reported the frequency of supportive peri-implant care, and three detailed the procedures adopted. The number of patients included ranged from 15 to 85, with a mean age from 60.4 to 68.4 years. None of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions: Removal of implant-supported prostheses is a crucial aspect in the long-term care of patients rehabilitated with full-arch restorations. Although no specific indications can be drawn with respect to the frequency at which supportive peri-implant care should be delivered and the regime used to do so, practitioners should consider performing professional oral hygiene measures every 6 months and removing prostheses at least once per year. All interventions should be tailored to the patient’s risk profile and characteristics. Keywords: dental implants, implant disease prevention, implant-supported full-arch prostheses, oral hygiene maintenance, peri-implantitis, supportive peri-implant care, tooth loss The authors declare no potential conflict of interests relating to this study. AR received a 3-year scholarship from the Clinical Research Foundation (CFR) for the Promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland, and a 1-year scholarship from the International Team for Implantology (ITI). The study was self-funded; no external funding was available for this research.

Background: The present retrospective study investigates implant retention time in patients who had experienced multiple implant failures and explores possible risk factors. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent placement of at least two implants and experienced failure of two or more implants between 2004 and 2022 were included in the study population. Both patient- and implant-related risk factors, including age, sex, medical history, medication intake, smoking, alcohol consumption, implant properties and anatomical and surgical factors, were evaluated. Descriptive analysis and univariate and multivariate statistical analysis were performed to assess implant retention time and failure risk, with the level of statistical significance set at 0.05. Results: A total of 371 patients (178 men and 193 women, median age 63 years) with 3,141 implants were included in the analysis (3.14% of all patients treated since 2004). Out of these implants, 1,090 failures were observed (59.01% of all failed implants at the Academy of Oral Implantology, Vienna, Austria), with a median retention time of 108.11 months. Patients who lost teeth due to periodontitis did not show a tendency towards early implant failure (P > 0.001). Nicotine consumption (P < 0.001), age < 50 years and > 70 years (P < 0.001), maxillary location (P = 0.05), transgingival healing (P < 0.001), no provisional restoration (P = 0.035) and short implant length (P < 0.001) were associated with statistically significantly shorter implant retention times. Conclusions: Patients with multiple implant failures displayed cluster behaviour and had a median implant retention time of 9 years. Smoking, short implant length, single-stage surgery and immediate loading were all associated with a higher risk of failure, whereas age between 50 and 70 years and tooth loss due to periodontitis were associated with a longer implant retention time. Keywords: cluster analysis, failure analysis, implant survival, risk factors, smoking, systemic health The authors declare their employment with the Academy of Oral Implantology, Vienna, Austria, and report no other conflicts of interest.

Purpose: To evaluate the survival and success rate of and the incidence of complications affecting implants inserted and immediately loaded in sites where an impacted tooth was present in the maxilla. Materials and methods: A total of 10 patients were treated and 14 implants were inserted, 4 in healed sites and 10 in extraction sites. The implant site preparation started in the crestal bone and continued in the enamel and dentine of the impacted tooth. The radiographic depth of implant penetration into the impacted tooth, peri-implant soft tissue and hard tissue condition at the 1-year follow-up and the last follow-up appointment, marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up and the last follow-up appointment, and the final aesthetic result were evaluated. Results: The implants healed uneventfully with an adequate hard and soft tissue response and no adverse clinical or radiographic signs or symptoms. They were in function for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 11 years (mean 7.2 years). Conclusion: Although further studies with a larger sample size are required to validate this unconventional approach, it can be considered a valuable clinical option to replace teeth in an area of impaction. Keywords: dental implants, immediate loading, immediate placement, impacted tooth, orthodontic extrusion The authors declare no potential conflicts of interests 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. Keywords: 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.

The pursuit of predictable implant success in the aesthetic zone continues as technology develops. Creating stable marginal bone and an optimal peri-implant mucosal environment is the foundation for a long-term healthy and aesthetic implant treatment outcome. Tissue stability is dependent on multiple factors, including the regenerative materials used to create the peri-implant supporting tissues and maintain the tissue volume. The present study aims to describe a technique that combines a flapless approach to extract hopeless teeth in the aesthetic zone and implant insertion using an acellular dermal matrix placed to contain the coronal aspect of an innovative ossifying collagen scaffold designed to promote neoformation of vital native bone. This technique combines a minimally invasive approach with the application of a novel biomaterial that offers stable augmentation of the gingival thickness as well as bone fill in the facial gap, the space between the implant and the buccal plate, to ensure predictable aesthetic results. A collection of cases are presented to demonstrate the surgical technique and the situation over a follow-up period of 22 months. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT imaging were utilised to quantify the stability or changes noted in the alveolar bone, and pre-and post-treatment intraoral scanning were used for the same purpose in the peri-implant phenotype. This case series presents stable and aesthetic clinical outcomes evaluated through digital assessment. Keywords: aesthetics, collagen bone scaffold, digital dentistry, immediate placement, phenotype Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no potential conflict of interests relating to this study.