Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
6.4
3.2
Journals
Materials
Special Issues
Advances in Dental Implants: Materials, Procedures and Clinical Response
materials-logo
Submit to Special Issue Submit Abstract to Special Issue Review for Materials Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Advances in Dental Implants: Materials, Procedures and Clinical Response

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

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 March 2026 | Viewed by 6297

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Davide Farronato

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Medicine and Technological Innovation, Research Center of Innovative Technology and Engineered Biomaterial, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
Interests: implantology; biomechanics; prosthodontic rehabilitation; implant design
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Dr. Magda Mensi

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. School of Dentistry, Department of Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy
2. UOC Odontostomatologia ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy
Interests: perio; implants; hygiene
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Implant rehabilitation is a procedure in exponential evolution, fueled by a compelling social mandate for faster, more reliable, and more accessible solutions. The pursuit of biomimetic outcomes and easier-to-perform therapies leads clinicians to seek innovative solutions, occasionally not supported by enough established scientific certainties about the clinical and biological response. This implies a rapid evolution towards materials and operative procedures with incomplete understanding.

This Special Issue is marked by the desire to emphasize a critical and proactive reevaluation of the potential risks, benefits, and indications of innovative solutions, materials, and designs in prosthetic implant rehabilitation and its related regenerative procedures. New knowledge or confirmation of clinical and experimental results is being sought, with a focus on rehabilitation methods, design, and material usage. These factors significantly influence short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes, presenting benefits and complications that yield specific indications and limits. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to present studies exploring biological or mechanical complications or advantages, usage indications, and design considerations in rehabilitative procedures with dental implants, including regenerative methods.

Dr. Davide Farronato
Dr. Magda Mensi
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 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

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 materials and design
  • prosthetic materials and design
  • biomaterials
  • biomechanics
  • bone substitutes
  • soft tissue substitutes
  • clinical applications of dental implants
  • clinical applications of bone regeneration
  • digital dentistry
  • risk factors in implantology.

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 (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

11 pages, 3691 KB  
Article
Implant Surface Variability Between Progressive Knife-Edge Thread Design and International Organization for Standardization Thread with and Without Tapping Area: A Model Analysis
by Davide Farronato, Luca Poncia, Marco Vidotto, Vittorio Maurino and Leonardo Romano
Materials 2025, 18(22), 5113; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18225113 - 11 Nov 2025
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 444
Abstract
An implant’s thread design plays a key role in enhancing primary stability by optimising the distribution of loading forces and biomechanical structural interlocking. An increase in bone-to-implant contact (BIC) surface availability affects osseointegration timing and leads to different biomechanical behaviours. To assess their [...] Read more.
An implant’s thread design plays a key role in enhancing primary stability by optimising the distribution of loading forces and biomechanical structural interlocking. An increase in bone-to-implant contact (BIC) surface availability affects osseointegration timing and leads to different biomechanical behaviours. To assess their theoretical impacts on osseointegration functionality, this study aims to analyse and compare the surface areas of two different thread designs: progressive knife-edge and V-shaped metric ISO ones. Six implant models are virtually created, with progressive knife-edge threads, non-self-tapping ISO threads, and ISO threads with tapping areas, considering two arbitrary diameters (3.8 mm and 4.6 mm). For both diameters, the models also have identical lengths (9.5 mm) and external outlines. The total, superior half, and inferior half external surface areas are measured using a digital tool (SolidWorks 2023 SP 5.0, Dassault Systèmes, Waltham, MA, USA). Then, the percentage difference in external surface area (ΔESA) is calculated. A greater ΔESA is found in the knife-edge design compared to the ISO thread self-tapping implants for the 4.6 mm diameter (ΔESA = +9.9%). However, for the 3.8 mm diameter, the ΔESA is −1.5% in favour of the ISO self-tapping model. Considering the apical half of the models, the ΔESA is always greater in the knife-edge models, varying from +9.3% to +23.5%. Implants with progressive knife-edge threads offer a significantly larger external surface area than those with ISO threads for the 4.6 mm rather than the 3.8 mm diameter. Considering the apical halves of the implants, the tapping area negatively affects the ΔESA, as well as the ISO thread design. Future research is needed to investigate whether the inspected surface area differences correspond to significant primary and secondary stability variations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Dental Implants: Materials, Procedures and Clinical Response)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1899 KB  
Article
Factors Influencing the Screw Stability of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: An In Vitro Study
by Shaza Bishti, Mohamad Shams Eddin Alsagher, Martin Homa, Stefan Wolfart and Taşkın Tuna
Materials 2025, 18(3), 506; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18030506 - 23 Jan 2025
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2591
Abstract
The aim is to investigate the impact of retention type, implant/abutment angulation, and the presence of sealant/antimicrobial agents on screw loosening of implant-supported restorations. Fifty dental implants along with their respective abutments and screws were allocated to five groups (n = 10). The [...] Read more.
The aim is to investigate the impact of retention type, implant/abutment angulation, and the presence of sealant/antimicrobial agents on screw loosening of implant-supported restorations. Fifty dental implants along with their respective abutments and screws were allocated to five groups (n = 10). The groups were categorized based on type of crown retention (screw-/cement-retained), implant/abutment angulation (0°/20°), and type of disinfectant/sealant as follows: Cem_control (cemented/0°/none), Cem_GP (cemented/0°/gutta-percha), Cem_CHX (cemented/0°/chlorhexidine), Cem_Ang (cemented/20°/none), and Screw (screwed/0°/ none). Abutment screws were tightened (20 Ncm), and CAD/CAM zirconia crowns were fabricated. Glass ionomer cement was used for crown cementation in the cemented groups. Samples were subjected to dynamic loading in a chewing simulator (1,200,000 cycles/98 N). After loading, the reverse torque values (RTVs) of the abutment screws were determined (Ncm) using an electronic screwdriver, and the reverse torque difference (RTD) was subsequently calculated. The lowest RTD was reported in group Cem_GP (−2.22 ± 1.03), whereas the highest RTD was seen in group Screw (−4.65 ± 1.79). Group Screw showed a statistically significant difference from all other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference between the cemented test groups Cem_GP, Cem_CHX, and Cem_Ang and the control group was found. Screw-retained restorations exhibited significantly greater RTD values compared to cement-retained ones. Implant/abutment angulation and the sealant/disinfectant appeared to have no notable effect on the screw stability of single-implant restorations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Dental Implants: Materials, Procedures and Clinical Response)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1625 KB  
Article
Long-Term Clinical Study on Sandblasted–Acid-Etched Surface Dental Implants: 12-Year Follow-Up
by Eugenio Velasco-Ortega, Jesús Pato-Mourelo, Borja López-López, Loreto Monsalve-Guil, Jesús Moreno-Muñoz, José López-López, Enrique Núñez-Márquez, Nuno Matos Garrido, José Luis Rondón-Romero, Álvaro Jiménez-Guerra and Iván Ortiz-García
Materials 2025, 18(1), 183; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18010183 - 4 Jan 2025
Viewed by 2466
Abstract
Sandblasting and acid etching are common procedures used to treat implant surfaces, enhancing osseointegration and improving clinical success rates. This clinical study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of sandblasted and acid-etched implants. A total of 303 implants were placed in 114 partially [...] Read more.
Sandblasting and acid etching are common procedures used to treat implant surfaces, enhancing osseointegration and improving clinical success rates. This clinical study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of sandblasted and acid-etched implants. A total of 303 implants were placed in 114 partially and totally edentulous patients using a two-stage surgical technique and an early loading protocol (6–8 weeks). Clinical findings for implants and prosthetics were evaluated over a 12-year follow-up period. A total of 12 implants (3.9%) failed, with 3 failures occurring during the healing period before loading and 9 due to peri-implantitis. The cumulative survival rate for all implants was 96.1%. A total of 156 prostheses were placed on 300 implants, 87 single crowns, 45 partial fixed bridges, 9 full-arch fixed restorations, and 15 overdentures. The mean marginal bone loss was 1.18 mm. (SD. 0.64 mm.). Thirty-nine implants (13%) in twenty-four patients exhibited peri-implantitis. Technical complications, including prosthetic screw loosening or fracture, ceramic chipping, and acrylic fractures, were observed in 24 subjects (21.1%). Sandblasted and acid-etched surface implants placed in the maxilla and mandible reported favorable outcomes and stable tissue conditions with an early loading protocol. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Dental Implants: Materials, Procedures and Clinical Response)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop