materials-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Biocompatibility and Clinic Outcome of Different Dental Implants

A special issue of Materials (ISSN 1996-1944). This special issue belongs to the section "Biomaterials".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (10 May 2022) | Viewed by 5880

Special Issue Editor

Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Center of Clinical Research, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Interests: dental materials; adult stem cells; biocompatible materials; laser therapy; malocclusion; osseointegration; periodontal diseases; periodontal ligament; saliva
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

You are cordially invited to contribute to this Special Issue entitled "Biocompatibility and Clinic Outcome of Different Dental Implants".

Dental implants are the first therapeutic choice for the treatment of edentulous patients. This therapeutic modality is based on the ability of the implant to make tight contact with bone on the microscopic level, which is known as osseointegration.

Modern implants generally exhibit excellent ability to osseointegrate and present excellent short-term clinical outcomes. However, the long-term stability of dental implants is still a challenging task for modern implantology. Long-term clinical outcomes largely depend on the osseointegration and the soft tissue quantity and quality around the implant's neck and abutments. Peri-implant soft tissue represents a critical mechanical and immunological barrier against external factors and oral microbes colonizing the implant surface. The loss of soft tissue integrity leads to peri-implantitis, an inflammatory processes disease, which is often detrimental for the osseointegrated implants and may lead to implant loss.

The approaches to improve the integration of the hard and soft tissues around the dental implant are mainly based on surface treatment. Numerous surface modifications are currently applied in order to enhance biocompatibility and bioactivity. Many of these procedures are developed using modern nanobiotechnology approaches. Understanding the exact mechanisms involved in the hard and soft tissue response to surface modification is crucially important in the development of new strategies of periimplantitis treatment and prevention. Furthermore, the application of digital technology in the implantology enhance the accuracy of the surgical procedures and exact fitting of different implant parts, which has enormous potential to improve clinical outcomes.

This Special Issue welcomes original and review papers on dental implants, focusing on surface modification, nanotechnology, and digital dentistry. Clinical, animal, and in vitro original studies as well as review papers are invited.

Prof. Dr. Xiaohui Rausch-Fan
Guest Editor

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. Materials is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly 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 2600 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

  • dental implant
  • titanium
  • ceramic implant
  • digital dentistry
  • surface treatment
  • nanotechnology
  • osseointegration
  • peri-implant soft tissue
  • osseointegration

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

11 pages, 3515 KiB  
Article
Comparison of Implant Placement Accuracy in Healed and Fresh Extraction Sockets between Static and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Navigation Systems: A Model-Based Evaluation
by Miaozhen Wang, Xiaohui Rausch-Fan, Yalin Zhan, Huidan Shen and Feng Liu
Materials 2022, 15(8), 2806; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ma15082806 - 11 Apr 2022
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 1436
Abstract
The aim of this model-base study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in a fresh extraction socket and healed ridge. A randomized in vitro study was conducted. Twenty 3D-printed maxillary models and [...] Read more.
The aim of this model-base study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in a fresh extraction socket and healed ridge. A randomized in vitro study was conducted. Twenty 3D-printed maxillary models and 80 implants were used. One experienced researcher placed the implants using either the static navigation or dynamic navigation system. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative CBCT on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. In the fresh sockets, the mean deviation was 1.24 ± 0.26 mm (entry point), 1.69 ± 0.34 mm (apical point), and 3.44 ± 1.06° (angle discrepancy) in the static CAIS group, and 0.60 ± 0.29 mm, 0.78 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.47 ± 1.09° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. In the healed ridge, the mean deviation was 1.09 ± 0.17 mm and 1.40 ± 0.30 mm, and 2.12 ± 1.11° in the static CAIS group, and 0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 0.98 ± 0.37 mm, and 1.69 ± 0.76° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. Compared with the static CAIS system, the dynamic CAIS system resulted in significantly lower entry and apical errors in both fresh sockets and healed ridges. Differences in bone morphology therefore seem to have little effect on accuracy in the dynamic CAIS group. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biocompatibility and Clinic Outcome of Different Dental Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

15 pages, 508 KiB  
Review
Histologic Evaluation of Soft Tissues around Dental Implant Abutments: A Narrative Review
by Chiara Cinquini, Vincenzo Marchio, Edouard Di Donna, Fortunato Alfonsi, Giacomo Derchi, Marco Nisi and Antonio Barone
Materials 2022, 15(11), 3811; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ma15113811 - 27 May 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1930
Abstract
The basis for dental implant success comes not only with the titanium implant osseointegration but also depends on other factors such as the development of a soft tissue barrier, which protects the peri-implant bone from the oral environment. The characteristics of surfaces in [...] Read more.
The basis for dental implant success comes not only with the titanium implant osseointegration but also depends on other factors such as the development of a soft tissue barrier, which protects the peri-implant bone from the oral environment. The characteristics of surfaces in contact with peri-implant soft tissues may affect the capacity of peri-implant mucosal cells to create a tight seal around the implant, thus influencing long-term implant success. Many histological studies on animals have been conducted on different materials to better understand their influence on peri-implant soft tissues, with the limitation that results from animal studies cannot be fully translated in humans. The aim of this review paper was to analyze the literature focusing on histological clinical studies in humans which have examined different materials or different surface treatments and their effects on peri-implant soft tissues. The research was conducted according to the following PICO question: “Do different implant/abutment materials affect peri-implant soft tissues adhesion and health?”. Nine articles were analyzed in this review. The results of this review show the influence of different abutment materials on the peri-implant soft tissues, and the need of further research regarding the effect that abutment materials, surface treatments, and surface properties have on soft tissues. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biocompatibility and Clinic Outcome of Different Dental Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

14 pages, 2800 KiB  
Systematic Review
Short Implants versus Longer Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with a Post-Loading Follow-Up Duration of 5 Years
by Miaozhen Wang, Feng Liu, Christian Ulm, Huidan Shen and Xiaohui Rausch-Fan
Materials 2022, 15(13), 4722; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ma15134722 - 05 Jul 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2078
Abstract
This study compared the outcome of fixed prostheses supported by short implants (<8 mm) and longer implants (≥8 mm) with an elevated sinus floor after 5 years of follow-up. The literature searches were performed electronically and manually in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of [...] Read more.
This study compared the outcome of fixed prostheses supported by short implants (<8 mm) and longer implants (≥8 mm) with an elevated sinus floor after 5 years of follow-up. The literature searches were performed electronically and manually in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant articles published from 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2020. We selected eligible studies using inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. From 1688 identified studies, five randomized controlled trials were included. Between the short implant group and the control group, the implant failure-related pooled risk ratio (RR) was 3.64 (p = 0.07). The RR for technical complications was 2.61 (p = 0.0002), favoring longer implants. Marginal peri-implant bone loss after 1 and 5 years of function showed statistically significant less bone loss at short implants (1 year: mean difference = 0.21 mm; p < 0.00001; 5 years: mean difference = 0.26 mm; p = 0.02). The implant failure and the biological failure of both groups were similar after 5 years of follow-up. Short implants could be an alternative to long implants with an elevated sinus floor for atrophic maxillae in aging populations. Studies with larger trials and longer periods of follow-up (10 years) remain essential. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biocompatibility and Clinic Outcome of Different Dental Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop