Submit to Special Issue Submit Abstract to Special Issue Review for JCM Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Current Trends in Implant Dentistry

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 September 2025 | Viewed by 3508

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Marco Toia

E-Mail
Guest Editor

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
Interests: clinical dentistry; restorative dentistry; esthetic dentistry; fixed prosthodontics; implant dentistry; oral surgery; periodontology; dental implantology; oral implantology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The field of implant dentistry is undergoing significant transformations, driven by the integration of advanced technologies and innovative approaches. This Special Issue, “Current Trends in Implant Dentistry”, will showcase research and insights into the evolving trends shaping our profession.

Today’s implantology is not just about placing implants; it is a comprehensive process that involves biological, technological, and procedural advancements. We invite submissions exploring the following areas:

1. Advancements in Implant Design

Investigations into surface modifications, new macro geometries, and material innovations will enhance osseointegration, ensure immediate loading, and reduce peri-implant complications.

2. Regenerative Techniques and Alternative Anchorage Solutions

Cutting-edge studies on bone regeneration materials and methods and innovative implant placement strategies in challenging anatomical conditions, such as zygomatic, pterygoid, and nasal implants for atrophic patients.

3. Technological Integration in Case Planning and Execution

Research into digital workflows, including 3D previsualization, craniofacial avatar reconstruction, and guided surgery (static and dynamic), to improve precision and patient-centred care.

We encourage submissions that address these trends from biological, procedural, and clinical perspectives, emphasizing the seamless integration of new materials and technologies to optimize patient outcomes.

Dr. Marco Toia
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. Journal of Clinical Medicine 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

digital implant planning
osseointegration
guided surgery (static and dynamic)
bone regeneration
zygomatic and pterygoid implants
3D previsualization
craniofacial analysis
peri-implant diseases
immediate loading

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (5 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

16 pages, 1126 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Psychosocial Impact of Maxilla-For-All^® Treatment Using Standard and Long Implants (Pterygoid, Trans-Sinus and Zygomatic) on Patients with Severe Maxillary Atrophies: A 1-Year Prospective Study with PIDAQ-23 and OHIP-14

by Tommaso Grandi, Paolo Toti, Cesare Paoleschi, Matteo Giorgi, Ugo Covani and Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris

J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(10), 3544; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14103544 - 19 May 2025

Viewed by 139

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The satisfaction of patients following maxillary full-arch rehabilitation is crucial in assessing treatment effectiveness. This one-year study evaluated patients’ satisfaction, quality of life, and aesthetic perception after receiving the Maxilla-for-All^®/All-On-X treatments, which combine standard, pterygoid, trans-sinus, and zygomatic implants to support a fixed prosthesis and offer a graftless solution that reduces morbidity and treatment time. Methods: A prospective cohort study using convenience sampling of subjects treated for severe maxillary atrophies was conducted on patients receiving immediate implant-supported full-arch fixed prostheses. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ-23) were administered preoperatively and one year post-treatment. Patients were grouped based on the presence or absence of complications (surgical, technical, and mechanical) and Wilcoxon tests were used for comparison (significance level = 0.05). Results: A total of 56 patients (29 female, 27 male) participated, with no implant or prosthesis failures. Eleven patients reported unilateral sinus membrane perforation, and seven had technical or mechanical complications. Preoperatively, 69% of patients rated their oral condition as unfavorable according to the OHIP-14; this dropped significantly to 21.8% post-treatment (p-value < 0.0001). After one year, the average PIDAQ-23 score improved significantly from 44.7 ± 16.6 to 6.8 ± 5.3 (p-value < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed between patients with or without complications (p-values ranging from 0.5270 to 0.8920). Conclusions: Full-arch rehabilitation using Maxilla-for-All^®/All-On-X treatments significantly improved both aesthetic perception and chewing function in patients with severe maxillary atrophies. They reported a substantial reduction in oral health-related discomfort, as shown by a significant decrease in OHIP-14 scores one year post-treatment. Clinical or technical complications did not significantly impact patients’ quality-of-life outcomes or satisfaction, supporting the reliability of this treatment protocol. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Implant Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1971 KiB

Open AccessArticle

A Comparative Evaluation of the Primary and Secondary Stability of Dental Implants with Progressive and Conventional Thread Designs: A Prospective Non-Interventional Study of 100 Implants in 62 Patients

by Daniel Seidel, Jörg Neugebauer, Günter Dhom, Octavio Weinhold, Kai-Peter Zimmermann, Robert Sader, Paul Weigl and Peter Gehrke

J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(9), 3040; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14093040 - 28 Apr 2025

Viewed by 338

Abstract

Objectives: We wished to compare the primary and secondary stability of dental implants with a progressive design (PL) versus a conventional thread design (SL) across various clinical settings. Methods: A total of 100 implants (50 PL and 50 SL) were placed in 62 patients. The stability of the implants was assessed using a resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at the time of placement (T1) and 20 weeks postoperatively before prosthetic loading (T2). Bone density was measured in Hounsfield units (HU) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The ISQ values were recorded for each group and anatomical region, including both inter- and intragroup comparisons over time. Results: Both implant designs showed a significant increase in stability during the healing period. At T1, the ISQ values were comparable between groups (SL: 71.3 ± 8.6; PL: 71.1 ± 8.7). At T2, the ISQ values increased significantly in both groups (SL and PL: p < 0.01), with no statistically significant difference in the degree of the gain in stability. The ISQ values were generally lower in the maxilla compared to those in the mandible. In the posterior mandible, the SL implants demonstrated a greater increase in stability compared to that with the PL implants. A strong positive correlation between the HU and ISQ values was observed for both groups (SL: r = 0.95; PL: r = 1.00), without reaching statistical significance. Conclusions: While the progressive thread design aims to enhance the primary stability, it did not outperform the conventional design in this study. Both implant types proved effective in achieving stable and predictable clinical outcomes. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Implant Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 1083 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Use of an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Novel Tool for the Evaluation of Dental Implants Primary Stability and Immediate Loading Feasibility: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

by Marco Degidi, Giuseppe Daprile, Filippo Battelli, Ernesto Caselli, Luca Cisternino, Alessandro Greco, Daniele Palumbo, Federico Quasso, Fabio Rossi, Corrado Tavelli and Zoran Zaccheroni

J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(6), 2011; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062011 - 16 Mar 2025

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 485

Abstract

Background/Objectives: A novel tool based on artificial intelligence (AIT) to evaluate immediate loading feasibility was recently introduced. The aim of this study is to evaluate the correspondence between the AIT prediction and the operator’s evaluation in a large sample of implants. Methods: 11 operators were asked to classify the recorded insertion curves of all the implants placed during the period between September 2022 and August 2023 as suitable or non-suitable for immediate loading. Next, the same curves were analyzed by the AIT, which classified them as belonging to YES (suitable for immediate loading) or NO (non-suitable for immediate loading) class. Results: 1320 dental implants were placed and a total of 21 different implant systems were used. According to the surgeons’ evaluation, 999 curves were suitable and 321 were non-suitable for immediate loading; when evaluated by the AIT, 916 curves belonged to class YES, while 404 belonged to class NO. The resulted sensitivity was 90.49% (95% CI = 88.5% to 92.2), specificity was 96.26% (95% CI = 93.6% to 98.1%), PPV was 98.7% (95% CI = 97.7% to 99.3%), and NPV was 76.5% (95% CI = 72% to 80.5%). Conclusions: The AIT tested in the present clinical multicenter study demonstrated a high level of accuracy in the prediction of immediate loading feasibility. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Implant Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

20 pages, 793 KiB

Open AccessSystematic Review

A Systematic Review on Immediate Implant Placement in Intact Versus Non-Intact Alveolar Sockets

by Axelle Ickroth, Véronique Christiaens, Jeremy Pitman and Jan Cosyn

J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(7), 2462; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14072462 - 3 Apr 2025

Viewed by 702

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare IIP in intact versus non-intact sockets in terms of buccal bone thickness. Methods: Two independent reviewers carried out an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to June 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series on intact and/or non-intact sockets were included for analysis. The primary outcome was buccal bone thickness (BBT). Secondary outcomes were vertical midfacial soft tissue level change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival and complications. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: After screening 1001 unique titles and conducting manual searches, 20 articles reporting on 525 implants (intact: 265; non-intact: 260) in the anterior maxilla with a follow-up of up to 120 months were selected. The overall study quality was low, especially for non-intact sockets since only two RCTs could be found, and none demonstrated a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to a lack of direct comparisons, and heterogeneity in terms of surgical approach, soft tissue handling, and restorative approach. BBT ranged between 1.10 and 3.18 mm (intact) and 1.18 and 3 mm (non-intact). Vertical midfacial soft tissue level change ranged between −0.13 and −0.58 mm (intact) and −0.03 and −0.59 mm (non-intact). Pink esthetic scores ranged between 10.48 and 12.80 (intact) and 9.25 and 12.43 (non-intact). Implant survival exceeded 90% in all studies and was 100% in the vast majority of the studies. Conclusions: This systematic review suggests a similar outcome of IIP in intact and non-intact sockets. However, the overall low study quality, a lack of direct comparisons, and heterogeneity rendered the comparison highly biased. Future studies should be conducted to establish an evidence-based treatment approach for IIP in non-intact sockets. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Implant Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 591 KiB

Open AccessSystematic Review

Laser Technology in Periodontal Treatment: Benefits, Risks, and Future Directions—A Mini Review

by Dhafer Al Asmari and Ali Alenezi

J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(6), 1962; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061962 - 14 Mar 2025

Viewed by 1540

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The efficacy and safety of laser therapy in periodontal treatment are comprehensively reviewed in this study, focusing on efficacy, safety, patient experiences, and cost-effectiveness. Methods: This review encompasses a literature survey, analyzing studies from 2010 to 2024, and a search was conducted in January 2024 across various electronic databases, including PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, COCHRANE library, and Science Direct. The search utilized Mesh terms/keywords such as “Laser therapy”, “Periodontal disease”, “Efficacy”, and “Safety.” Results: Out of the initial 884 articles identified, 98 were selected based on their titles and abstracts. After evaluating the full texts and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 articles were chosen for the review, meeting the study’s criteria. Conclusions: This review identifies gaps in current research and points to emerging trends and potential future advancements in laser therapy, emphasizing the need for standardized protocols, long-term studies, and technological innovations to enhance treatment efficacy and accessibility. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Implant Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Current Trends in Implant Dentistry

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (5 papers)

Research

Other

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI