Special Issue "Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants"

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Stomatology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 1 June 2023 | Viewed by 4655

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Ralph Gunnar Luthardt
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of Dentistry, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany
Interests: artificial gingivitis; biomolecular analysis of peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF); clinical trials; computer-assisted surgery; computer-guided surgery; dental restauration failure; dental implants; gingival retraction; implant supported dentures; prosthesis survival; shortened dental arch; tooth loss; treatment outcome; three-dimensional analysis
Dr. Heike Rudolph
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of Dentistry, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany
Interests: accuracy of dental impression materials; all-ceramic restorations; artificial aging; alveolar ridge preservation; bond strength of luting materials; ceramic dental implants; cyclic-loading; clinical trials; CAD/CAM technology; digitizing; gingival displacement; systematic review; three-dimensional analysis of fit

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The constantly evolving field of dental implantology is being scientifically investigated, employing a wide variety of approaches. The aim of this Special Issue is to provide a broad representation of cutting-edge research results at the highest scientific level, and, thus, to provide comprehensive knowledge about the latest state of the art.

For this purpose, we are searching for the latest results of clinical studies on various topics, including, but not limited to, the following: osseointegration, healing strategies, new diagnostic and treatment concepts, as well as minimally invasive procedures.

Diagnostic procedures can be, for example, biomolecular, histological or immunohistochemical analyses of samples from clinical studies.

Innovative treatment concepts can be based on material aspects, variations in superstructures and fixation types on the one hand, but also on lean and/or digital workflows. The questions of how successful implant treatment can be further improved, and which possibilities of prevention arise to protect individuals against implant loss shall be addressed, as well as how successful therapy of peri-implant inflammation may look in the future, based on the current state of science.

Join us in describing and charting the path to the future of modern implant dentistry.

Prof. Dr. Ralph Gunnar Luthardt
Dr. Heike Rudolph
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. 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

  • implantological clinical trial
  • dental implantology
  • digital workflow
  • treatment concept
  • innovative materials
  • inflammation marker
  • superstructures
  • lean workflow
  • minimally invasive implant treatment

Published Papers (6 papers)

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

Research

Jump to: Other

Article
Soft-Tissue Augmentation around Dental Implants with a Connective Tissue Graft (CTG) and Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix (CMX)—5-Year Follow-Up
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(3), 924; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030924 - 24 Jan 2023
Viewed by 602
Abstract
Proper horizontal and vertical thickness of the gingival connective tissue has been proven to be one of the success criteria in dental implant and reconstructive surgery. When thin tissue is found, gingiva augmentation methods can be used to increase the quality and volume [...] Read more.
Proper horizontal and vertical thickness of the gingival connective tissue has been proven to be one of the success criteria in dental implant and reconstructive surgery. When thin tissue is found, gingiva augmentation methods can be used to increase the quality and volume of the tissue. Many methods have been described, among them pedicle soft-tissue flaps or autogenic tissue grafts. As an alternative to patients’ own tissue, xenogenic materials can be used for grafting. The fundamental issue is to choose a material that will ensure the maximum therapeutic effect, while also minimizing the negative influence on the patient’s health. The aim of this study was to compare gingival augmentation procedures using a palatal connective tissue graft (CTG) and an xenogenic soft-tissue substitute, Geistlich Mucograft (xenogeneic collagen matrix; CMX), and assess whether the timing of the graft surgery influences the clinical outcomes. The original study was a randomized control trial with a total of 75 implants placed. The patients received the soft-tissue thickening 3 months before the implant placement or 3 months after the implant placement (depending on the group). A connective tissue graft (CTG) or Geistlich Mucograft were used (depending on the group). For both the CTG and Geistlich Mucograft, better clinical outcomes were observed for maintaining the alveolar bone level and the thickness of the attached gingiva compared to the control group with no gingival augmentation. The Geistlich Mucograft showed good clinical performance in comparison to the control. Soft-tissue augmentation with the CTG before the implant placement was found to be most efficient method in terms of a stable increase of the tissue thickness since, throughout the entire observation period, the greatest increase of 1.035 mm (SD = 0.73 mm) in thickness was observed. Statistically important differences in the tissue thickness baseline compared after 5 years were observed for groups G1 vs. G2b (no augmentation vs. CTG before), G1 vs. G3b (no augmentation vs. CTG after) and for groups G2b vs. G3a (CTG before vs. CMX after). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Factors Influencing the Survival Rate of Teeth and Implants in Patients after Tumor Therapy to the Head and Neck Region—Part 2: Implant Survival
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(21), 6319; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216319 - 26 Oct 2022
Viewed by 460
Abstract
During prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor therapy (TT) in the head and neck region, the dentist must assess whether the prognosis of the remaining teeth is sufficiently good or whether implants should be used to anchor dentures. Thus, the aim of the present study [...] Read more.
During prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor therapy (TT) in the head and neck region, the dentist must assess whether the prognosis of the remaining teeth is sufficiently good or whether implants should be used to anchor dentures. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the survival rate of teeth and implants after TT and to evaluate factors potentially influencing implant survival. One hundred fifteen patients (male: 70.3%; mean age: 63.2 ± 12.4 years) having received dental treatment before and after TT at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg were enrolled in the study. Clinical examination including assessment of dental status and stimulated salivary flow rate was performed. Information about disease progression and therapy was retrieved from medical records. After TT, from a total of 1262 teeth, 27.2% had to be extracted. Of 308 implants inserted after TT, 7.0% were lost. Teeth exhibited lower 5-year survival probability (76.8%) than implants (89.9%; p = 0.001). The risk of loss (RL) of implants increased with age, nicotine use, intraoral defects, and RCT. Radiotherapy did not independently increase the RL. Thus, implants seem to be a reliable treatment option in case of progressive tooth decay after TT, particularly after RT. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Factors Influencing the Survival Rate of Teeth and Implants in Patients after Tumor Therapy to the Head and Neck Region—Part 1: Tooth Survival
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(20), 6222; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11206222 - 21 Oct 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 500
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate possible factors influencing the long-term survival of teeth after tumor therapy (TT) to the head and neck region with and without radiation. Between January 2019 and January 2020, patients who underwent TT for head and neck cancer and received [...] Read more.
We aimed to evaluate possible factors influencing the long-term survival of teeth after tumor therapy (TT) to the head and neck region with and without radiation. Between January 2019 and January 2020, patients who underwent TT for head and neck cancer and received dental treatment before and after TT at the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg were enrolled in the study. Clinical examination with assessment of dental status and stimulated salivary flow rate (SFR) was performed and information about disease progression and therapy was retrieved from medical records. Of 118 patients (male: 70.3%; mean age: 63.2 ± 12.4 years), 95 received radiotherapy (RT), and 47 were administered radio-chemotherapy (RCT). The teeth of irradiated patients exhibited a lower 5-year survival probability (74.2%) than those of non-irradiated patients (89.4%). The risk of loss (RL) after RT increased with nicotine use, presence of intraoral defects, reduced SFR, RCT and regarding mandibular teeth, and decreased with crowning following TT. Lower SFR increased the RL even without RT. Consideration of patient’s treatment history, individual risk profile, and clinical findings during the prosthetic planning phase could enable earlier, more targeted dental treatment after TT (e.g., timely crowning). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
A Retrospective Observational Study Assessing the Clinical Outcomes of a Novel Implant System with Low-Speed Site Preparation Protocol and Tri-Oval Implant Geometry
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(16), 4859; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164859 - 18 Aug 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1373
Abstract
A novel, biologically friendly implant concept system introduces low-speed (50 rpm) site preparation instruments used without irrigation and a tri-oval, tapered implant designed to reduce stress on cortical bone without sacrificing mechanical stability. This retrospective, observational, multicenter study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04736771) collected data from [...] Read more.
A novel, biologically friendly implant concept system introduces low-speed (50 rpm) site preparation instruments used without irrigation and a tri-oval, tapered implant designed to reduce stress on cortical bone without sacrificing mechanical stability. This retrospective, observational, multicenter study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04736771) collected data from consecutive patients treated with at least one novel concept system implant to evaluate clinical outcomes after 1 year in function. The primary endpoint was a marginal bone level change (MBLC) from loading to 1 year, and secondary endpoints included implant survival and clinician feedback. Ninety-five patients (54 women and 41 men, mean age: 58 ± 12 years) were treated with 165 implants. For 94.5% of implants, site preparation was performed in two steps. The mean follow-up from implant insertion was 1.8 ± 0.2 years. Mean MBLC from implant loading to 1-year follow-up was +0.15 ± 0.85 mm (n = 124 implants). At the last follow-up, the implant survival rate was 98.0%. Clinician satisfaction with the novel concept system was high. The novel concept system offers an easy-to-use implant placement protocol, with most implants placed using two steps. The minimal bone remodeling and high survival rate observed across a variety of indications and treatment protocols demonstrate broad versatility and confirm the clinical benefits of this biologically friendly innovation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Effect of Sinus Perforation with Flaplessly Placed Mini Dental Implants for Oral Rehabilitation: A 5-Year Clinical and Radiological Follow-Up
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(15), 4637; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154637 - 08 Aug 2022
Viewed by 881
Abstract
Background: Flaplessly placed one-piece mini dental implants (MDI) are an option to support maxillary overdentures. Evenly distribution of the implants over the atrophic alveolar process implies a risk of accidental sinus perforation in the posterior area which could induce sinus-related pathology. Methods: Thirty-one [...] Read more.
Background: Flaplessly placed one-piece mini dental implants (MDI) are an option to support maxillary overdentures. Evenly distribution of the implants over the atrophic alveolar process implies a risk of accidental sinus perforation in the posterior area which could induce sinus-related pathology. Methods: Thirty-one patients received 5–6 maxillary MDIs. Schneiderian membrane swelling was assessed with CBCT at the deepest point of the sinus in the mid-sagittal plane prior to surgery (baseline), after 2 and 5 years. Additionally, subjective patient-reported rhinosinusitis complaints, the effect of smoking, and gender differences were investigated. Results: Mean thickness of the Schneiderian membrane was 2.87 mm at baseline, 3.15 mm at 2 years, and 4.30 mm at 5 years in 27 of 31 initially treated patients. MDI perforation was detected in 21/54 sinuses. At 2 years, perforation length does not affect membrane thickness whereas baseline swelling does. In smokers, each perforated mm induced 0.87 mm additional swelling. After 5 years, the effect of baseline swelling becomes smaller whereas perforation length became statistically significant, with 0.53 mm increase for every perforated mm. The effect of smoking lost its significance. No relations between gender, membrane thickness changes, or subjective clinical sinus complaints and MDI perforation were found. Conclusion: Accidental MDI sinus perforation induces Schneiderian membrane swelling but does not interfere with clinical sinusal outcome after 5 years. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

Systematic Review
Clinical Effects of Photofunctionalization on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Loss: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(23), 7042; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237042 - 28 Nov 2022
Viewed by 329
Abstract
Background: Several clinical trials have recently been conducted to elucidate the effectiveness of photofunctionalization. The aim of this review was to systematically analyze the clinical effects of photofunctionalization on implant stability and marginal bone loss (MBL). Methods: An electronic search in four databases [...] Read more.
Background: Several clinical trials have recently been conducted to elucidate the effectiveness of photofunctionalization. The aim of this review was to systematically analyze the clinical effects of photofunctionalization on implant stability and marginal bone loss (MBL). Methods: An electronic search in four databases and a manual search were conducted in September 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials (CCTs), and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the effects of photofunctionalization on implant stability or marginal bone loss (MBL) in humans were included. The methodological quality assessment using RoB 2.0 and the ROBINS-I tool was performed based on different study designs. Results: Seven studies were included for a qualitative analysis, and five of them were chosen for a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that photofunctionalization significantly improved the stability of the implant 2 months after implantation (p = 0.04; MD = 3.48; 95% CI = −0.23 to 6.73) and increased the osseointegration speed index (OSI) (p = 0.007; MD = 2.13; 95% CI = 0.57 to 3.68). However, no significant improvements of implant stability were observed 2 weeks (p = 0.62), 4 weeks (p = 0.31), nor 4 months (p = 0.24) after implantation. The evaluation presented no significant reductions in MBL. Conclusions: Based on the positive effect of photofunctionalization on the rate of establishing implant stability, photofunctionalization may provide an effective and practical strategy to achieve faster osseointegration and reduce the overall healing time. Photofunctionalization appears to improve the implant stability. However, the clinical effect of photofunctionalization on MBL remains unclear due to the shortage of available studies. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances in Osseointegrated Oral Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop