PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to gather, compare, and appraise studies that attempted to determine the biological and mechanical tolerance of misfits.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The review protocol was published in the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42021268399) and follows the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Ebscohost, and Web of Science followed by a manual search up to December 2021.
RESULTS: A total of 413 manuscripts were identified by electronic and manual search. After removing duplicates, nonrelevant titles, and abstract screening, 62 manuscripts were eligible for full-text assessment. Finally, a total of 13 articles (1 cross-sectional study, 1 retrospective and prospective, 7 in vitro studies, and 4 animal studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. A wide range of tolerable misfits were reported. Vertical misfit up to 1 mm and horizontal misfit up to 345 μm were associated with no adverse outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature provides inadequate data to determine a clinical threshold of an acceptable misfit. However, this review demonstrated that the mechanical response to misfit is more critical than the biological response.
METHODS: Retrospective data from clinical worksheets given to participants during two implant courses held between the periods of 2013 to 2014 were evaluated. A total of 61 implants were considered based on the inclusion criteria. The effects of parameters such as implant diameter, implant length, age, gender, implant location and osteotomy protocol on ISQ values were analyzed.
RESULTS: Mean ISQ value for all implants was 67.21±9.13. Age of patients (P=0.016) and location of implants (P=0.041) had a significant linear relationship with the ISQ values. Within the age limit of the patients in this study, it was found that an increase in one year of patient's age results in 0.20 decrease in ISQ value (95% CI: -0.36, -0.04). However, placing an implant in the posterior maxilla may negatively affect the ISQ with a likely decrease in primary stability by 6.76 ISQ value (95% CI: -13.22, -0.30).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the mean ISQ achieved by the participants were comparable with the range reported for this particular type of implants. The patient's age and location of implants were elucidated as the determinant factors of primary implant stability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with implants were included in this study and implants were assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Bone levels of the implants were assessed by measuring mesial and distal bone levels from the periapical radiograph, and soft tissue was assessed from probing depth using a periodontal probe. Implants were assessed for stability and probing depth at pre-loading, at 3 months and 6 months post-loading. RFA and probing depth were statistically compared from different time points. Correlation of probing depth and marginal bone loss with implant stability was also determined.
RESULTS: The average change in implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements from pre-loading to 6 months post-loading was found to be statistically significant (p <0.005). The average probing depth reduced from 1.767 mm at pre-loading to 1.671 mm at post-loading 3 months, and 1.600 mm at post-loading 6 months. At 6 months of function, radiographic examination yielded 0.786 mm mesial bone loss and 0.8 mm distal bone loss. It was found to be statistically significant (p <0.005) but within an acceptable range. No significant correlation was found between implant stability and bone loss; and implant stability and probing depth.
CONCLUSION: The study revealed an increasing trend in implant stability values with the time that indicates successful osseointegration. Increasing mean values for mesial and distal bone loss were also found.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The success of dental implants is highly dependent on the quality of bone and implant-bone interface, i.e., osseointegration. The most important factors that influence the survival rate of an implant is initial stability. The present study found the changes in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues and implant stability. This article, while being a prospective study, may show the evidence of successful osseointegration by increasing trend in implant stability (RFA) values with time which can help to the clinician in the long-term management of implants.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate correlations between different implant positions and crestal bone loss and between interimplant distance and the crestal bone loss in patients with 2IMOs with immediate loading protocols at 1-year follow-up.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 24 participants (13 men, 11 women, mean ±standard deviation age 63.25 ±10.76 years) were treated with 2IMOs (48 Ti-Zr implants) by a single operator between August 2015 and October 2020. The implant diameters (3.3 mm or 4.1 mm) and lengths (10 mm or 12 mm) were selected based on the crestal bone width, and the implants were placed, if possible, in the canine regions. Implant positions and interimplant distance (mm) were measured intraorally with dividers. Prefabricated mandibular dentures were immediately loaded with the LOCATOR-attachments by using a direct intraoral pickup procedure. Crestal bone-level changes were measured with a software program on the mesial and distal sides of each implant from periapical radiographs made with a paralleling technique (at baseline and 1-year follow-up). The measurement values were normalized. The Spearman rho correlation test and paired samples t tests were used for data analysis (α=.05).
RESULTS: The mean ±standard deviation position of the implants from the midline was 8.78 ±2.25 mm (9.00 ±2.22 mm right side, 8.56 ±2.31 mm left side), and the mean interimplant distance was 16.94 ±4.03 mm. At 1-year follow-up, the mean ±standard deviation crestal bone loss was 0.50 ±0.47 mm (n=48) (0.57 ±0.65 mm mesial, 0.43 ±0.53 mm distal). The mean ±standard deviation crestal bone loss was 0.46 ±0.4 mm with Ø3.3-mm implants (n=42) and 0.9 ±0.8 mm with Ø4.1-mm implants (n=6) (P=.005). Implant positions were negatively correlated (rs=-0.37) with the crestal bone loss, and the correlation was significant (P=.009). Interimplant distances were also negatively correlated with crestal bone loss (rs=-0.60; P=.002). Bone loss on the mesial side was positively correlated with that on the distal side rs=0.20; however, the correlation was not significant (P=.16).
CONCLUSIONS: A weak and negative correlation was found between the implant position from the midline and the crestal bone loss and also between the interimplant distance and crestal bone loss in patients provided with 2IMOs with immediate loading protocols.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present article was to review the current literature on the fracture loads and fracture modes of SRCR implant restorations - in vitro studies, and also studies demonstrating the clinical performance of such design.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted from January 2000 to June 2022, using 6 databases to identify studies on fracture load and clinical performance that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria (22 in vitro and16 in vivo). The in vivo studies comprised case reports/series/letters (9), clinical techniques (2), retrospective/prospective studies (3), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2).
RESULTS: The reviewed articles reported the effects of the SRCR design on the fracture risk if screw access channels were filled or unfilled, with regard to their diameter, and the preparation before or after glazing. The effect of the type of material used in the construction on the fracture modes SRCR restorations was also reported. The long-term clinical data was mainly retrospective and referred to metal-ceramic constructions. Limited long-term clinical data was available for all-ceramic materials and high-performance polymers (HPPs).
CONCLUSIONS: Screw-retrievable cement-retained implant restorations appear to have potential in the monolithic design. If the SRCR construction is metal-ceramic or made of a veneered material, special design and abutment selection should be considered. High-performance polymers may be recommended as a substitute for posterior implant restoration.
METHODS: Sixty-four extracted mandibular molars were root-treated and lined with flowable composite (1.5 mm thickness) before being embedded in epoxy resin blocks. The samples were divided into four groups (n = 16): three endocrown groups with different preparation designs (butt-joint, 0.8 mm chamfer, and 1.0 mm shoulder) and one group with conventional crowns. Crown preparations were performed with a high-speed handpiece mounted on a modified milling device, targeting a 2.0 mm anatomical occlusal reduction for conventional crowns and a 4.0 mm central chamber depth with a 2.0 mm axial wall height (ferrule) for endocrowns (except the butt-joint design, which had no ferrule preparation). Restorations were fabricated using the Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics (CEREC) Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system with lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD; minimum occlusal thickness: 1.5 mm) as the restorative material and cemented with the RelyX Ultimate dual-cure resin adhesive. After 1,500 thermocycling cycles, the samples were divided into two subgroups (n = 8) for axial and oblique loading tests. The fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, applying a load of up to 5,000 N until fracture. Failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope at 5x magnification and categorized as catastrophic or non-catastrophic. The mean fracture resistance was compared using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, and Fisher's exact test was used to assess the association between preparation designs and failure modes (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: Endocrowns with shoulder margins showed significantly higher fracture resistance (3,042.83 ± 850.76 N) than conventional crowns (1,908.28 ± 635.82 N) under axial loading (p = 0.02). No significant differences were found under oblique loading between the preparation designs. The preparation design significantly influenced the failure mode under axial loading (p = 0.049). Endocrowns exhibited a higher rate of catastrophic fractures than conventional crowns, regardless of loading direction.
CONCLUSIONS: Endocrowns provide a conservative alternative to conventional crowns, offering a higher fracture resistance under axial loading. Further research is needed to evaluate the endocrown performance under oblique loading.
METHODS: Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search was carried out on two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from January 2011 to September 2022 were included. The bias risk was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Further screening was done for meta-analysis according to modified Newcastle-Ottawa scoring criteria. Forest plot was generated using a statistical method of inverse variance of random effect with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included for systematic review out of which four studies were based on tooth-supported fixed prosthesis and remaining four were based on implant-supported prosthesis. Further screening was conducted and three studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Tooth-supported fixed prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed no significant difference in the marginal fit in any region measured, except for occlusal region where conventional impression showed more favorable marginal fit. Implant-supported prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed survival rates ranging from 97.3 to 100% and there was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss (p = 0.14).
CONCLUSION: Implant-supported prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions show no significant differences in their clinical outcomes. Tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital impression have shown favorable findings in terms of marginal fit. Despite that, there is still lack of clinical trials with larger sample size and longer follow-up periods. Future studies that fulfill these two criteria are deemed necessary.