Structurally Optimized Honeycomb Scaffolds with Outstanding Ability for Vertical Bone Augmentation

Bone augmentation procedures represent a real clinical challenge. One option is the use of titanium meshes. Additive manufacturing techniques can provide custom-made devices in titanium alloy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the material used, which can influence the outcomes of the bone augmentation procedure. Specific test samples were obtained from two different manufacturers with two different shapes: surfaces without perforations and with calibrated perforations. Three-point bending tests were run as well as internal friction tests to verify the Young’s modulus. Test samples were placed in two different buffered solutions and analyzed with optical microscopy. A further SEM analysis was done to observe any microstructural modification. Three-point flexural tests were conducted on 12 specimens. Initial bending was observed at lower applied stresses for the perforated samples (503 MPa) compared to non-perforated ones (900 MPa); the ultimate flexural strength was registered at 513 MPa and 1145 MPa for perforated and non-perforated samples, respectively. Both microscopic analyses (optical and SEM) showed no significant alterations. Conclusions: A normal masticatory load cannot modify the device. Chemical action in the case of exposure does not create macroscopic and microscopic alterations of the surface.

Download Full-text

The survival rates and risk factors of implants in the early stage: a retrospective study

BMC Oral Health ◽

10.1186/s12903-021-01651-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yong Yang ◽

Huiting Hu ◽

Mianyan Zeng ◽

Hongxing Chu ◽

Zekun Gan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Bone Quality ◽

Early Stage ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Bone Augmentation ◽

Early Survival ◽

Immediate Implantation ◽

Implant Length

Abstract Background Few large-sample studies in China have focused on the early survival of dental implants. The present study aimed to report the early survival rates of implants and determine the related influencing factors. Methods All patients receiving dental implants at our institution between 2006 and 2017 were included. The endpoint of the study was early survival rates of implants, according to gender, age, maxilla/mandible, dental position, bone augmentation, bone augmentation category, immediate implant, submerged implant category, implant diameter, implant length, implant torque, and other related factors. Initially, SPSS22.0 was used for statistical analysis. The Chi-square test was used to screen all factors, and those with p < 0.05 were further introduced into a multiple logistic regression model to illustrate the risk factors for early survival rates of implants. Results In this study, we included 1078 cases (601 males and 477 females) with 2053 implants. After implantation, 1974 implants were retained, and the early survival rate was 96.15%. Patients aged 30–60 years (OR 2.392), with Class I bone quality (OR 3.689), bone augmentation (OR 1.742), immediate implantation (OR 3.509), and implant length < 10 mm (OR 2.972), were said to possess risk factors conducive to early survival rates. Conclusions The early survival rate of implants in our cohort exceeded 96%, with risk factors including age, tooth position, bone quality, implant length, bone augmentation surgery, and immediate implantation. When the above factors coexist, implant placement should be treated carefully.

Download Full-text

Autogenous bone augmentation from the zygomatic alveolar crest: a volumetric retrospective analysis in the maxilla

International Journal of Implant Dentistry ◽

10.1186/s40729-020-00258-y ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Irina Kuster ◽

Livia Osterwalder ◽

Silvio Valdec ◽

Bernd Stadlinger ◽

Maximilian E. H. Wagner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gold Standard ◽

Donor Site ◽

Bone Defects ◽

Donor Site Morbidity ◽

Bone Volume ◽

Autogenous Bone ◽

Bone Augmentation ◽

Maximum Volume ◽

Alveolar Crest ◽

Good Access

Abstract Background Autogenous bone augmentation is the gold standard for the treatment of extended bone defects prior to implantation. Bone augmentation from the zygomatic crest is a valuable option with several advantages, but the current literature for this treatment is scant. The aim of this study was to evaluate the increase in bone volume after locoregional bone augmentation using autogenous bone from the zygomatic alveolar crest as well as the complications and success rate. Results Analysis of the augmented bone volume in seven patients showed a maximum volume gain of 0.97 cm3. An average of 0.54 cm3 of autogenous bone (SD 0.24 cm3; median: 0.54 cm3) was augmented. Implantation following bone augmentation was possible in all cases. Complications occurred in three patients. Conclusion The zygomatic alveolar crest is a valuable donor site for autogenous alveolar onlay grafting in a locoregional area such as the maxillary front. Low donor site morbidity, good access, and its suitable convexity make it a beneficial choice for autogenous bone augmentation.

Download Full-text

A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-87507-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoran Yu ◽

Ruogu Xu ◽

Zhengchuan Zhang ◽

Yang Yang ◽

Feilong Deng

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Bone Augmentation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Short Implants ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Complications Rate

AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

Download Full-text