Submit to IJERPH Review for IJERPH Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Advances in Oral Implantology

Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Published Papers

A special issue of International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601). This special issue belongs to the section "Global Health".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 August 2021) | Viewed by 18357

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Giovanni Battista Menchini Fabris

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Stomatology, University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi, 44, 00193 Roma, Italy
Interests: dental implants; oral surgery; dental prostheses; periodontology; immediate load systems; dental aesthetics

Prof. Dr. Alessandro Quaranta

E-Mail Website
Assistant Guest Editor

School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Griffith University, Brisbane 4222 Australia
Interests: periodontology; oral implantology

Prof. Dr. Eitan Mijiritsky

E-Mail Website
Assistant Guest Editor

Department of Head and Neck and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6139001, Israel
Interests: digital dentistry; implantology; prosthodontics; removable partial prosthesis; implants' immediate loading
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Prof. Dr. Antonio Barone

E-Mail Website
Assistant Guest Editor

Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular, and Critical Area Pathology, Università di Pisa, Pisa 43, 56126, Italy
Interests: oral surgery and implantology; bone reconstruction

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The creation of this Special Issue, “Advances in Oral Implantology,” is highly important; in the last 50 years, dental implantology has passed many epochs, in which techniques and technologies have been developed in order to reduce patient softness more and more, and increase the stability and safety of procedures.

This new Special Issue in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health aims to highlight the continuous innovations in the field of implantology, and develop these with impressive speed, as is done in other areas of medicine.

The phases of biology that regulate the integration between the implant-crown system and the patient's hard and soft tissues are still deeply studied in the function of new materials and new surgical techniques. The introduction of the digitization and virtualization processes of the surgical and prosthetic procedures has led to significant changes in the approach to clinical practice.

All of these new introductions have started an acceleration in the execution of surgical and prosthodontic techniques, further improving the high safety of the procedures.

With this Special Issue of Advances in Oral Implantology, we aim to review the current state of the art and the latest research regarding implant dentistry, by selecting the research papers which report the best performing and least invasive techniques.

Prof. Dr. Giovanni Battista Menchini Fabris
Prof. Dr. Alessandro Quaranta
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eitan Mijiritsky
Prof. Dr. Antonio Barone
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2500 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

immediate implantology
minimally invasive techniques
custom abutments
bone grafting
alveolar bone managment
CAD/CAM prosthetics
optical intraoral impressions
full arch rehabilitation

Published Papers (6 papers)

Download All Papers

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

12 pages, 7000 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Distal Displacement of Maxillary Sinus Anterior Wall Versus Conventional Sinus Lift with Lateral Access: A 3-Year Retrospective Computerized Tomography Study

by Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris, Paolo Toti, Giovanni Crespi, Ugo Covani and Roberto Crespi

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(19), 7199; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17197199 - 01 Oct 2020

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 2610

Abstract

Background: The present study is designed to compare the outcomes of two sinus augmentation procedures: distal displacement of the anterior wall versus standard sinus lifting and grafting with a lateral window approach. Methods: In the displacement group, a localized surgical fracture of the sinus floor achieved through an electromagnetic device results in the distal displacement of the anterior wall. In the filling group, sinus lifting (with lateral access) and grafting with particulate xenogeneic bone substitute was performed. Bone volume beneath the maxillary sinus was investigated with computerized tomography after baseline and postoperative data superimposition. Clinical and radiological outcomes over three years had been evaluated. Results: Forty-three dental implants were selected. The two sinus lift procedures significantly increased the bone volume (p-value ≤ 0.0017) in the displacement group from 1.17 ± 0.34 to 1.53 ± 0.39 cc, with a final bone gain of +0.36 ± 0.17 cc, and in the filling group from 1.24 ± 0.41 to 1.94 ± 0.68 cc, with a bone augmentation of +0.71 ± 0.31 cc. No events of dental implant bulging into the maxillary sinus occurred. Two implants failed early on in the filling group, attesting the 3-year survival rate of 92.6% (CI95%: 82.7–100%). Marginal bone loss at the distal aspect was 1.66 ± 0.72 and 1.25 ± 0.78 mm, respectively, for the displacement and filling groups, with a significant difference (p-value = 0.0497). Conclusion: Results showed a significant and effective bone gain around dental implants at a 3-year survey for both sinus augmented by backward displacement of the anterior wall (+34%) and sinus lifting and grafting with a lateral window approach (+57%). Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral Implantology)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1835 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Effect of Different Timings of Implant Insertion on the Bone Remodeling Volume around Patients’ Maxillary Single Implants: A 2–3 Years Follow-Up

by Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris, Paolo Toti, Giovanni Crespi, Ugo Covani, Luca Furlotti and Roberto Crespi

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(18), 6790; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17186790 - 17 Sep 2020

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 1919

Abstract

Background: To investigate the middle-term effect on bone remodeling of different timings for different implant placement (immediate versus delayed). Methods: Patients with an anterior maxillary failing tooth were treated by single-crown supported by dental implant. Subjects were retrospectively analyzed for 3 years and assigned to one of two predictor groups: nine immediate versus 10 delayed implant placement (1–2 months after tooth extraction). The crestal bone loss around dental implants was measured with the cone beam computerized tomography by fusing pre-operative and post-operative data. Results: The percentage of volume loss registered at 1-year follow-up (%ΔV) was of 7.5% for the immediate group, which was significantly lower (p-values ≤ 0.0002) than the loss of 24.2% for the delayed group. At 3 years, there was a significant difference (p-values = 0.0291) between the two groups, respectively, with a volume loss of 14.6% and 27.1%. When different times were compared, the percentage of the volume loss for the immediate group was different (p-value = 0.0366) between the first and third year (7.5% and 14.6%, respectively). For the delayed group, no significant difference was registered between the 1- and 3-year follow-up. Conclusions: The bone loss around dental implant-supported single-crown with different timing of insertion appeared higher for the delayed group than the immediate group. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral Implantology)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 1379 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Lateral Window Design for Maxillary Sinus Graft Based on the Implant Position

by Kyeong-Jun Cheon, Byoung-Eun Yang, Seoung-Won Cho, Sung-Min Chung and Soo-Hwan Byun

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(17), 6335; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17176335 - 31 Aug 2020

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3300

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to devise a classification and lateral window design method based on implants and to evaluate whether these classifications and methods are applicable to clinical practice. When applying the maxillary sinus elevation technique using the lateral window, possible situations were classified into four: (A) two or more sites for implants are required for maxillary sinus augmentation, (B) a single implant is required when there are no adjacent teeth, (C) a single implant is required when one adjacent tooth is present at the mesial or distal area, and (D) a single implant is required when both mesial and distal adjacent teeth are present. In order to verify whether this classification can be used in all situations, 76 patients who underwent maxillary sinus elevation with a lateral window were selected and investigated. Of them, 47 (62%) were included in Group A, 9 (12%) in Group B, 8 (11%) in Group C, and 12 (15%) in Group D. Lateral window designing in the lateral approach of sinus augmentation can be classified into four clinical situations. There were no unclassified cases. This classification and window positioning method can be applied to most cases. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral Implantology)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

17 pages, 2060 KiB

Open AccessReview

The Efficacy of Powered Oscillating Heads vs. Powered Sonic Action Heads Toothbrushes to Maintain Periodontal and Peri-Implant Health: A Narrative Review

by Camilla Preda, Andrea Butera, Silvia Pelle, Eleonora Pautasso, Alessandro Chiesa, Francesca Esposito, Giacomo Oldoini, Andrea Scribante, Anna Maria Genovesi and Saverio Cosola

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(4), 1468; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18041468 - 04 Feb 2021

Cited by 32 | Viewed by 5266 | Correction

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of rotating-oscillating heads (ORHs) VS sonic action heads (SAHs) powered toothbrushes on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. Methods: An electronic (MEDLINE, Embase, Inspec, PQ SciTech and BIOSIS) and a complementary manual search were made to detect eligible studies. RCTs meeting the following criteria were included: final timepoint longer than 15 days; year of publication after 2000; patients without orthodontic appliances or severe systemic/psychiatric diseases. Studies comparing two or more different types of sonic/roto-oscillating toothbrushes were excluded. Selection of articles, extraction of data, and assessment of quality were made independently by several reviewers. Results: 12 trials (1433 participants) were included. The differences between ORHs and SAHs toothbrushes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The heterogeneity of data was evaluated. Concerning Plaque Index, both toothbrushes obtained comparable results. Six trials of up to 3 months and at an unclear risk of bias provided significant outcomes in terms of gingival inflammation in favor of ORHs toothbrush. Evidence resulting from three trials of up to 6 months and at a high/low risk of bias stated SAHs toothbrush superiority in gingival inflammation. Conclusions: Both ORHs and SAHs toothbrushes improved the outcomes measured from the baseline. In most of the good quality trials included, SAHs toothbrush showed statistical better long-term results. Due to the shortage of investigations, no further accurate conclusions can be outlined with reference to the superiority of a specific powered toothbrush over the other. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral Implantology)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 1800 KiB

Open AccessReview

Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

by Saverio Cosola, Simone Marconcini, Michela Boccuzzi, Giovanni Battista Menchini Fabris, Ugo Covani, Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago and David Peñarrocha-Oltra

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(18), 6920; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17186920 - 22 Sep 2020

Cited by 20 | Viewed by 3724

Abstract

Background: to assess the radiological marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissue-level dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors including only English articles. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis counting a total of 1161 patients (mean age 54.4 years) and 2933 implants, 1427 inserted at Tissue-level (TL) and 1506 inserted at Bone-level (BL). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). Only one study reported statistically less marginal bone loss in TL-implants (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the most part of the studies, differences between implant types in marginal bone loss were not statistically significant after a variable period of follow-up ranged between 1 and 5 years. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral Implantology)

► Show Figures