Survival of Dyna Implants: A Retrospective Study with 1 to 6 Years of Follow Up

Objectives: Dental implants are a prominent scientific breakthrough and are frequently applied for replacement of the missing teeth. From the clinicians’ point of view, long-term studies are essential to find out the predictability of dental implant systems. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 1,626 patients who received 4,389 Dyna implants in a private office between 2013-2019 were evaluated. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25 for Windows. P values less than 0.1 were considered significant for regression analysis. Results: Dyna implantts (4389) placed from 2013 to 2019 were evaluated in this study. One-hundred and thirty-three (3.03%) implants failed during the healing period or recall visits. Eighty-nine implants (2.03%) failed immediately and 44 (1%) failed after 3 months. Conclusion: The present study showed that the Dyna dental implant system had high implant survival, and it had all the survival criteria similar to world-class dental implant systems.

Implant Survival, Clinical Outcome and Complications of Megaprosthetic Reconstructions Following Sarcoma Resection

Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions.

Peri-implant tissue conditions following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: 3-year results of a bi-center, randomized trial

Objectives The present study was performed to comparatively evaluate the peri-implant bone stability and conditions of marginal tissues at 3 years following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively). Materials and methods Patients included in a parallel-arm randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE were recalled at 3 years post-surgery. Twenty-one and 24 patients in tSFE and lSFE groups, respectively, participated in the follow-up visit. Peri-implant bone support was evaluated as the proportion of the entire implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area (totCON%) on 3-year periapical radiographs. The conditions of the marginal peri-implant tissues at 3-year visit were classified as peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis. Results At 3 years, both groups showed an implant survival rate of 100%. Median totCON% was stable at 3 years, being 100% in both groups (p = 0.124). Peri-implant health and mucositis were diagnosed in 10 (47.6%) and 11 (52.4%) patients, respectively, in the tSFE group, and in 8 (33.3%) and 16 (66.7%) subjects, respectively, in the lSFE group (p = 0.502). Conclusions At 3 years following surgery, implants placed concomitantly with tSFE and lSFE fully maintain peri-implant bone support. Peri-implant mucositis was the most prevalent condition, with a similar prevalence between groups. Clinical relevance. Based on 3-year data on peri-implant bone support and prevalence of peri-implant diseases, the study suggests that tSFE and lSFE represent two equally valid options for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02415946.

Five-Year Prospective Study on Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Remodeling Expected Using Bone Level Implants with Sandblasted/Acid-Etched Surface and Conical Connection

Objective The purpose of the present prospective, case-series study was to report implant survival rate and marginal bone remodeling expected 5 years after loading using dental implants placed in daily practice. Materials and Methods This research was designed as an open-cohort, prospective, case-series evaluation. Any partially or completely edentulous patient, scheduled to receive at least one bone level implant, was considered eligible for this study. Primary outcome measurements were: implant and prosthetic cumulative survival rate and any complications experienced up to the 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were: thickness of gingival biotype, implant insertion torque, implant stability quotient, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Results Ninety consecutive patients (34 males and 56 females, aged between 24 and 81 years old [mean: 53.2 ± 15.4]) with 243 inserted implants were followed for at least 5 years after loading (mean: 65.4 ± 3.1 months; range from 60 to 72). At the 1-year follow-up, no drop-outs were recorded, but 17 patients (18.9%) with 18 restorations (12.6%) delivered on 34 implants (14%) were lost at the 5-year examination. At the 5-year follow-up examination, six implants lost osseointegration (97.5%). In the same period, four prostheses failed (97.2%). Five complications were reported in five different patients (prosthetic success rate was 96.5%, at patient level). Five years after loading, the mean MBL was 0.41 ± 0.30 mm. The difference from the 1-year data was 0.04 ± 0.19 mm. A statistically significant higher MBL was found for smokers, and patients with thin gingival biotype. The mean implant insertion torque was 42.9 ± 4.8 Ncm (range from 15 to 45 Ncm). Two-hundred and three implants (83.5%) were inserted with an insertion torque ≥35 and ≤45 Ncm. Conclusions High implant survival and success rate could be expected with stable marginal bone remodeling up to 5 years after loading. Smoking and thin tissue biotype were the most important variabilities associated with higher MBL. Further research studies are needed to confirm these results.

What is the “safe zone” for transition of coronal alignment from systematic to a more personalised one in total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review

Purpose In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), implants are increasingly aligned based on emerging patient-specific alignment strategies, such as unrestricted kinematic alignment (KA), according to their constitutional limb alignment (phenotype alignment), which results in a large proportion of patients having a hip-knee angle (HKA) outside the safe range of ± 3° to 180° traditionally considered in the mechanical alignment strategy. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether alignment outside the safe zone of ± 3° is associated with a higher revision rate and worse clinical outcome than alignment within this range. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and World of Science, with search terms including synonyms and plurals for “total knee arthroplasty”, “alignment”, “outlier”, “malalignment”, “implant survival” and “outcome”. Five studies were identified with a total number of 927 patients and 952 implants. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the WOMAC were used to evaluate the clinical outcome. The follow-up period was between 6 months and 10 years. Results According to HKA 533 knees were aligned within ± 3°, 47 (8.8%) were varus outliers and 121 (22.7%) were valgus outliers. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were found between implants positioned within ± 3° and varus and valgus outliers. Likewise, no significant differences were found regarding revision rates and implant survival. Conclusion The universal use of the “safe zone” of ± 3° derived from the mechanical alignment strategy is hardly applicable to modern personalised alignment strategies in the light of current literature. However, given the conflicting evidence in the literature on the risks of higher revision rates and poorer clinical outcomes especially with greater tibial component deviation, the lack of data on the outcomes of more extreme alignments, and regarding the use of implants for KA TKA that are actually designed for mechanical alignment, there is an urgent need for research to define eventual evidence-based thresholds for new patient-specific alignment strategies, not only for HKA but also for FMA and TMA, also taking into account the preoperative phenotype and implant design. It is of utmost clinical relevance for the application of modern alignment strategies to know which native phenotypes may be reproduced with a TKA. Level of evidence IV.

Immediate restoration of fixed full-arch prostheses placed on implants in both fresh and healed sockets using the flat one-bridge technique: a 7-year retrospective study

Background The aim of this retrospective study was to document the long-term clinical efficacy of a surgical-prosthetic technique (the flat one-bridge technique) involving the immediate restoration of both postextraction and nonpostextraction implants supporting full-arch restorations. Methods Implants were placed by adapting the axis to the available bone. Flat definitive abutments were connected during surgery and never disconnected to compensate for eventual implant disparallelism. Bone grafting was performed when needed. The patients received a screw-retained provisional restoration within 48 h of surgery and a final screw-retained prosthesis within 1 year. Results Sixty-six patients received 494 implants distributed in 75 prostheses. The median follow-up was 86 months (range 82–168 months). Only three implants had failed at the last follow-up. Implant survival was 99.6%. Conclusion The flat one-bridge prosthetic protocol is a viable procedure with excellent long-term outcomes. No difference in clinical success could be observed between postextractive and nonpostextractive implants.

Molar Septum Expansion with Osseodensification for Immediate Implant Placement, Retrospective Multicenter Study with Up-to-5-Year Follow-Up, Introducing a New Molar Socket Classification

The ideal positioning of immediate implants in molar extraction sockets often requires the osteotomy to be in the interradicular septum, which can be challenging in some cases, with traditional site preparation techniques. Patients who had undergone molar tooth extraction and immediate implant placement at five different centers, and followed up between August 2015 and September 2020, were evaluated. Inclusion criteria were use of the osseodensification technique for implant site preparation. The primary outcome was septum width measurement pre-instrumentation and osteotomy diameter post expansion. Clinical outcomes, such as implant insertion torque (ISQ) and implant survival rate, were also collected. A total of 131 patients, who received 145 immediate implants, were included. The mean overall septum width at baseline was 3.3 mm and the mean osteotomy diameter post instrumentation was 4.65 mm. A total of ten implants failed: seven within the healing period and three after loading; resulting in a cumulative implant survival rate of 93.1%. This retrospective study showed that osseodensification is a predictable method for immediate implant placement with interradicular septum expansion in molar extraction sockets. Furthermore, it allowed the introduction of a new molar socket classification. In the future, well-designed controlled clinical studies are needed to confirm these results and further explore the potential advantages of this technique.