Special Issue "Dental Implants and Materials"

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

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 10 April 2020.

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Marco Tallarico
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Aldent University, Roma, Italy
Interests: Dental implant, Occlusion, Bone atrophy, Peri-implantitis, Guided surgery
Prof. Marco Cicciù
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences, Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Policlinico G. Martino, Via Consolare Valeria, 98100 Me, Italy
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
Interests: biomaterials; oral surgery; implantology; oral pathology; dental materials
Special Issues and Collections in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleague,

Since their introduction by Prof. Branemark in the 1960s, dental implants have become a reliable treatment option for the replacement of missing teeth in both partial and complete edentulous patients. Survival and success rates of implant-supported protheses depend on several factors, including physical and chemical properties of implant materials, such as microstructure, its surface composition and characteristics, as well as design factors. In recent years, the digital revolution has been changing the world, and dentistry is no exception. The introduction of new aesthetic materials, together with a whole range of digital devices (intraoral, extraoral, face scanners and cone beam computed tomography scans), processing software, and powerful manufacturing and prototyping tools (milling machines and 3D printers) are radically transforming the dental profession. In this vision, modern digital dentistry is changing workflows and, consequently, operating procedures. Although there is no doubt about their accuracy, there is still no evidence that new materials and digital procedures are superior to conventional workflows. The aim of this Special Issue is to provide strong evidence for modern patient-centered care. 

Dr. Marco Tallarico
Prof. Marco Cicciu
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 papers will be 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 1800 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 implants
  • dental materials
  • digital workflow
  • aesthetics
  • patient-centered outcomes
  • long-term results

Published Papers (4 papers)

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

Research

Open AccessArticle
A Comparative 3D Finite Element Computational Study of Three Connections
Materials 2019, 12(19), 3135; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193135 - 26 Sep 2019
Abstract
Masticatory overload on dental implants is one of the causes of marginal bone resorption. The implant–abutment connection (IAC) design plays a critical role in the quality of the stress distribution, and, over the years, different designs were proposed. This study aimed to assess [...] Read more.
Masticatory overload on dental implants is one of the causes of marginal bone resorption. The implant–abutment connection (IAC) design plays a critical role in the quality of the stress distribution, and, over the years, different designs were proposed. This study aimed to assess the mechanical behavior of three different types of IAC using a finite element model (FEM) analysis. Three types of two-piece implants were designed: two internal conical connection designs (models A and B) and one internal flat-to-flat connection design (model C). This three-dimensional analysis evaluated the response to static forces on the three models. The strain map, stress analysis, and safety factor were assessed by means of the FEM examination. The FEM analysis indicated that forces are transmitted on the abutment and implant’s neck in model B. In models A and C, forces were distributed along the internal screw, abutment areas, and implant’s neck. The stress distribution in model B showed a more homogeneous pattern, such that the peak forces were reduced. The conical shape of the head of the internal screw in model B seems to have a keystone role in transferring the forces at the surrounding structures. Further experiments should be carried out in order to confirm the present suppositions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants and Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Conditioning by Means of Customized Healing Abutment: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Materials 2019, 12(18), 3041; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12183041 - 19 Sep 2019
Abstract
Introduction: An optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes a novel workflow for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile. Materials and Methods: Two randomized groups were selected. [...] Read more.
Introduction: An optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes a novel workflow for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile. Materials and Methods: Two randomized groups were selected. Ten control group participants received standard healing screws at the surgical stage. Ten individualized healing abutments were Computer aided Design/Computer aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated out of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) restoration material in a fully digital workflow and seated at the surgical stage in the test group. The modified healing abutment shape was extracted from a virtual library. The standard triangulation language (STL) files of a premolar and a molar were obtained considering the coronal anatomy up to the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). After a healing period ranging from 1 to 3 months depending on the location of the surgical site, namely, mandible or maxilla, a digital impression was taken. The functional implant prosthodontics score (FIPS) and the numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain were recorded and compared. Results: The mean FIPS value for the test group was 9.1 ± 0.9 while the control group mean value was 7.1 ± 0.9. In the test group, pain assessment at crown placement presented a mean value of 0.5 ± 0.7. On the contrary, the control group showed a mean value of 5.5 ± 1.6. Conclusions: Patients in the test group showed higher FIPS values and lower NRS scores during the early phases compared to the control group. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants and Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Primary Stability Optimization by Using Fixtures with Different Thread Depth According To Bone Density: A Clinical Prospective Study on Early Loaded Implants
Materials 2019, 12(15), 2398; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12152398 - 27 Jul 2019
Cited by 1
Abstract
Background: Macro- and micro-geometry are among the factors influencing implant stability and potentially determining loading protocol. The purpose of this study was to test a protocol for early loading by controlling implant stability with the selection of fixtures with different thread depth according [...] Read more.
Background: Macro- and micro-geometry are among the factors influencing implant stability and potentially determining loading protocol. The purpose of this study was to test a protocol for early loading by controlling implant stability with the selection of fixtures with different thread depth according to the bone density of the implant site. Materials and Methods: Patients needing implant therapy for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation were treated by inserting fixtures with four different thread diameters, selected based on clinical assessment of bone quality at placement (D1, D2, D3, and D4, according to Misch classification). Final insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded at baseline and ISQ measurements repeated after one, two, three, and four weeks. At the three-week measurement (four weeks after implant replacement), implants with ISQ > 70 Ncm were functionally loaded with provisional restorations. Marginal bone level was radiographically measured 12 months after implant insertion. Results: Fourteen patients were treated with the insertion of forty implants: Among them, 39 implants showing ISQ > 70 after 3 weeks of healing were loaded with provisional restoration. Mean IT value was 82.3 ± 33.2 Ncm and varied between the four different types of bone (107.2 ± 35.6 Ncm, 74.7 ± 14.0 Ncm, 76.5 ± 31.1 Ncm, and 55.2 ± 22.6 Ncm in D1, D2, D3, and D4 bone, respectively). Results showed significant differences except between D2 and D3 bone types. Mean ISQ at baseline was 79.3 ± 4.3 and values in D1, D2, D3, and D4 bone were 81.9 ± 2.0, 81.1 ± 1.0, 78.3 ± 3.7, and 73.2 ± 4.9, respectively. Results showed significant differences except between D1 and D2 bone types. IT and ISQ showed a significant positive correlation when analyzing the entire sample (p = 0.0002) and D4 bone type (p = 0.0008). The correlation between IT and ISQ was not significant when considering D1, D2, and D3 types (p = 0.28; p = 0.31; p = 0.16, respectively). ISQ values showed a slight drop at three weeks for D1, D2, and D3 bone while remaining almost unchanged in D4 bone. At 12-month follow-up, all implants (39 early loading, 1 conventional loading) had satisfactory function, showing an average marginal bone loss of 0.12 ± 0.12 mm, when compared to baseline levels. Conclusion: Matching implant macro-geometry to bone density can lead to adequate implant stability both in hard and soft bone. High primary stability and limited implant stability loss during the first month of healing could allow the application of early loading protocols with predictable clinical outcomes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants and Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Effect of Simultaneous Immediate Implant Placement and Guided Bone Reconstruction with Ultra-Fine Titanium Mesh Membranes on Radiographic and Clinical Parameters after 18 Months of Loading
Materials 2019, 12(10), 1710; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101710 - 26 May 2019
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present prospective case series study was to evaluate the implant and prosthetic survival rates, complications and marginal bone loss using ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement, to provide space maintenance mandatory for guided bone reconstruction of [...] Read more.
Background: The aim of the present prospective case series study was to evaluate the implant and prosthetic survival rates, complications and marginal bone loss using ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement, to provide space maintenance mandatory for guided bone reconstruction of alveolar bone defects. Materials and Methods: patients were recruited and treated at a private clinic in Rome, Italy, between March 2016 and October 2017. Self-tapping tapered implants were placed through a computer-guided template-assisted approach. Autogenous bone was placed alone over the exposed implant surface, then mixed with inorganic bovine bone material. Finally, the membrane was connected and shaped in order to securely enclose the graft area, and the healing cap was connected and screwed onto the height connector. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic failure, biological and mechanical complications, marginal and volumetric bone level changes, esthetic evaluation performed according to the pink aesthetic score (PES). Results: in total, seven patients (five women, two men) with a mean age of 52.7 ± 20.3 years (range: 27–71) received 10 self-tapping tapered implants and simultaneous guided bone regeneration with ultra-fine titanium mesh membranes. No implants and no prostheses failed during the entire follow-up period. One slightly membrane exposure was observed one month after implant placement in one patient. The mean marginal bone loss (MBL) at implant loading was 0.13 ± 0.09 mm (95% CI 0.08–0.19). At the 18-month follow-up examination, the mean MBL was 0.28 ± 0.33 mm (95% CI 0.07–0.50) The difference was not statistically significant (0.15 ± 0.31; 95% CI 0.05–0.35; P = 0.1888). The mean horizontal alveolar ridge width was 3.72 ± 1.08 mm (95% CI 3.22–4.22 mm). At the II-stage surgery, the mean bone width was 8.79 ± 0.98 mm (95% CI 8.51–9.07 mm). The mean bone gain was 5.06 ± 1.13 mm (95% CI 4.68–5.44 mm; P = 0.000). The mean volume of the grafted bone calculated using the superimposition technique was 0.99 ± 0.38 CC (95% CI 0.75–1.23 CC). The mean PES at implant loading was 8.2 ± 0.8 mm (95% CI 7.7–8.7). At the 18-month follow-up examination, the mean PES was 12.0 ± 0.7 mm (95% CI 11.5–12.5) The difference was statistically significant (3.8 ± 0.4; 95% CI 3.5–4.1; P = 0.0000); Conclusion: with the limitation of the present prospective study, the guided bone reconstruction using an ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement seems to provide good and stable results in implant/prosthesis success. Further research with a longer follow-up and a higher sample size are needed to confirm the results from this preliminary report. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants and Materials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop