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.

Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation

To evaluate the implant and prosthetic of two implants with different surfaces and neck design. Enrolled patients received bone level, 12° conical connection implants (Nobel Parallel, Nobel Biocare; NOBEL group) with anodized surface (TiUnite) and roughness of 1.35 μm, or transmucosal implant system (Prama, Sweden and Martina; PRAMA group) with convergent collar, ZIrTi surface, and roughness 1.4–1.7 μm. Both implants were made of pure grade IV titanium, with similar diameter and length, chosen according to the dentistry department availability and patient’s request. After early prosthesis delivery, patients were filled for at least one year. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, physiological marginal bone remodeling, periodontal parameters and pink esthetic score (PES). Results: Fifteen patients were allocated and treated in each group. At the one-year follow-up, three patients dropped out, one in the NOBEL group and two in the PRAMA group. During the entire time of investigation, all implants survived and the prostheses were successful. No statistically significant differences were found in term of marginal bone loss, periodontal parameters, and aesthetics (p > 0.05). Conclusion: With the limitations of the present study, both implant systems showed successful clinical results. Finally, many other clinical and surgical variables may influenced marginal bone levels, implant survival, and periodontal parameters. More homogenous clinical trials with larger samples are needed to confirm these preliminary conclusions.

Comparison of two resilient attachment systems for implant-/mucosa-supported overdentures with a PEKK framework: a clinical pilot study

Objectives The aim of the study was to determine differences between Locator and CM LOC attachment systems regarding patient satisfaction and wear of the abutments and their inserts. Plaque accumulation onto the polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) framework and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) was investigated for the implant-supported overdentures. Methods Seventeen edentulous patients were randomised to receive either Locator or CM LOC system for the first year. The total number of implants was 53. After the randomisation, 25 implants received Locator system, and 28 implants received CM LOC system in the first year. After a period of 12 months, the attachment system was exchanged from either Locator to CM LOC or vice versa. Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires were used to evaluate patient satisfaction, chewing comfort, and pressure lesions. Prosthesis hygiene on the PMMA and PEKK surfaces was evaluated by using Stark plaque index. After the exchange of the abutments, they were stored until the end of the 24 months, and the surface wear of the abutments was analysed using a scanning electron microscope. Results Three patients (10 implants) died shortly before the end of the first year. Two patients (7 implants) received only Locator system since CM LOC was not indictable for their implant system. Patient’s satisfaction was increased when the attachment system was changed from Locator to CM LOC after 12 months of wearing time. Chewing ability and comfort were increased when the attachment system was changed from CM LOC to Locator after 12-month wearing time. There was no influence of the change of the attachment system on pressure lesions. The observed plaque accumulation was higher on the PMMA than on the PEKK surface. For the 8 investigated Locator abutments, the wear was within low and middle level. For the 28 investigated CM LOC abutments, the wear was within middle and high level for the terminal implants and between low and middle for the central implants (for patients who received 4 implants). Conclusions Patient’s satisfaction and wearing comfort can be improved with implant-supported overdentures with CM LOC abutments in comparison to Locator. There was no clear difference between both attachment systems concerning the chewing ability of the patients. Plaque accumulation was observed on both attachment systems in different areas. Plaque accumulation on PEKK surface was less than on PMMA surface. Clinical relevance The CM LOC attachment system offers stable and comfortable wearing conditions for implant-supported overdentures. The use of PEKK as a framework material could reduce the incidence of pressure lesions.