Dental Implant Research

Oct 12 

• 1.5-2mm bone buccal and lingual
• narrow diameter 3.75mm or less
• conical connection abutment
• platform switch .4mm or more
• provisionalize immediately
• definitive stock Zr abutment and abutment level impression
• 1.5mm to tooth 3mm between implants
• 5mm from crest to contact point for papilla fill
• subcrestal placement

They are talking about Ankylos implant system or similar

Meta-analysis Amri JPD 2016 1mm between implants may not lead to bone loss – this does contradict the 3mm recommendation but that may be related to getting a papilla and not bone loss

Loading protocol doesn’t impact positive effect laser texturing has  Guarnieri 2014

Cochrane systematic review of dental implants

There is a suggestion that immediate and immediate-delayed implants may be at a higher risk of implant failure and complications than delayed implants, on the other hand the aesthetic outcome might be better when placing implants just after tooth extraction. There is not enough reliable evidence supporting or refuting the need for augmentation procedures at immediate implants placed in fresh extraction sockets or whether any of the augmentation techniques is superior to the others.

Wider and longer implants may be placed at time extraction 1 2

96-100% immediate loaded full-arch fixed prosthesis in mandible 1 2 3

immediate survival rates beat delayed

>10mm beat less than – 8.5mm and less do well systemic review  – 6-7.5mm seem fine too – 8-9mm 10 year results same as longer 

in the 5-8.5mm the longer the longer survival systemic review

at least 7mm Balevi JADA Feb 2013 no additional risk failure in first year after loading non-augmented conventional healing

pristine bone sites beat augmented

>3.5mm beat <3.5mm

immediate placement immediate load with full arch SR prov works 1 2

Study of immediate placement immediate load SR prov.  Immediate load of implants in post extraction sites are very predictable as it appears that primary stability more than arch is the fundamental factor.  Immediate>delayed, augmented=pristine, greater than 10mm matters, width does not, bruxism matters. 1

Cluster implant failure trend

type IV bone better with anodic oxidized implant

3 implant replace three teeth leave unsplinted 1

Bone level vs tissue level – bone loss =

Dental Implant Survival Rate under specific conditions

Meta analysis and systemic review of survival rate of dental implants in irradiated patients is 85% Nobrega JPD 2016

Dental implant and keratinized tissue

Most studies show that there is no difference in survival with or without keratinized tissue. However there are exceptions, such as the Heydari JOMI 2021 meta-analysis showing that 2mm of keratinized tissue helps with every known measurable parameter. Of course there are exceptions, such as a study showing bone loss was actually higher with keratinized tissue. Todisco JOI 2019.  Felice JONI 2023 shows no difference in short dental implants.

Crestal vs sub-crestal

This is probably very system dependent with interface design and platform switching being far more important in determining which implants do best when. Cruz JPD 22 finds no difference in their meta-analysis. I think this is hard to do a meta-analysis on since it is some design dependent though.