dental implants

The rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous patients with implant supported prostheses has been widely used, achieving high success rates. However, many studies consider the presence of bruxism as a contraindication for this treatment modality. The purpose of this study was to review the literature and identify risk factors in implant supported rehabilitation planning in subjects with bruxism. The rehabilitation of bruxers using implant supported prostheses, using implants with adequate length and diameter, as well as proper positioning, seems to be a reliable treatment with reduced risks of failure. Bruxism control through the use of a night guard by rigid occlusal stabilization appliance, relieved in the region of implants, is highly indicated. Although it is clear that implant supported rehabilitation of patients with bruxism requires adequate planning and follow-up, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence on the long-term success of this treatment modality.

The primary objective of this study was to detect the success and short-term survival rate of dental implant prosthetic therapy. The valuation of a possible relationship between the general and local clinical conditions of the patients (presence of risk factors and type of dental implant-supported prosthesis) and the satisfaction perceived by the patient, with success and survival of implant devices was investigated.The sample trial consisted of 23 patients, for a total of 50 dental implants supporting a prosthetic therapy. Preliminarily, an analysis of averages and frequencies of the anamnestic data was presented, as numbers and percentages. The implant success rate was calculated by assessing whether the implants fulfilled the success criteria defined by the Pisa Consensus Conference. The ANOVA test was used to check whether there was an association between the success of the implant device, the anamnestic data collected, and the type of prosthesis supported by the implants. Finally, the survival rate was calculated using the Kaplan - Meier method.The 2-year success rate of 50 implants was assessed at 98%. The 2-year survival rate was 97%. Finally, sex, age, compensated diabetes, a smaller and equal number of cigarettes per day (10 per day), the BOP, and the type of titanium dental implants supported by prosthesis, do not determine a change in success and are therefore not adequate parameters to predict the outcome of implant success. Following the results obtained, it is appropriate to continue the research by expanding the clinical observation times in order to obtain more solid scientific and clinical evidence.

Background: Prophylactic dental procedures following implant placement are critical to the long-term success of implants and are also dependent on the patient maintaining effective home care.Purpose: Evaluation of the effectiveness of preventive measures in patients with diabetes during long periods after prosthetic treatment with implants.Materials and methods: The study included 62 patients with diabetes with edentulism using 146 dental implants. Patients underwent constant monitoring, including regular occupational hygiene during follow-up examinations. Their frequency was set individually from 2 to 4 times A clinical index including Bleeding on Probing (BOP), Probing Depth (PD), and Marginal Bone Loss (MBL). Results: In patients included in the preventive protocol after 12 months, the mean BOP was 1.4 ± 0.15, and PPD was 2.46 ± 0.42. After 12 months in patients mean MBL was 0.72 ± 0.6 mm, after 3 years MBL was 1.24 ± 0.25 mm. For patients who were excluded from preventive services after 12 months, the mean BOP 1.9 ± 0.25, and the mean PPD was 3.56 ± 0.28). After 12 months in patients mean MBL was 0.87 ± 0.7 mm, after 3 years MBL was 1.52 ± 0.32 mm (p > 05). Compared to persons enrolled in the preventive protocol, those in the group without services were more likely to develop peri-implantitis (42.4% vs. 12,6%). The survival rate of implants after 3 years was 98.4%. The survival rate of implants in those patients who were excluded from preventive services after 3 years was 95.4%.Conclusion: For patients with diabetes, regular medical examinations, accompanied by professional oral hygiene procedures, prevent the development of negative reactions of the soft tissues surrounding the implant.

Microchip implants have emerged as transformative tools in the realm of oral health and craniofacial science, offering novel solutions to longstanding challenges. This paper aims to explore the diverse applications of microchip technology in dentistry and craniofacial medicine, envisioning a future where these implants play a pivotal role in diagnostics, treatment modalities, and ongoing patient care. The integration of microchips enables real-time monitoring of oral conditions, facilitating early detection of dental issues and providing personalized treatment strategies. Additionally, these implants open avenues for smart prosthetics and orthodontic devices, optimizing patient comfort and treatment outcomes. However, ethical considerations, patient perceptions, and the societal impact of such technology should also be addressed. By examining the multifaceted implications and applications of microchip implants in oral health and craniofacial science, this research overview seeks to contribute valuable insights to the intersection of technology and healthcare in the dental domain.

In the realm of dental surgery, implants are essential for replacing missing teeth. To facilitate implant placement, techniques such as bone grafting and sinus lifts are utilized to augment the volume of atrophied alveolar bone in candidates for dental implants. Typically, patients undergo a period of recovery following bone grafts before proceeding with implant placement. This study investigates the efficacy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in measuring the residual bone volume and assessing bone quality after the healing phase. A texture analysis was conducted on CBCT scans from 42 patients requiring maxillary sinus lift reconstruction. These patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of grafting material used: Xenograft or allograft. The study analyzed the distribution of various texture parameters and conducted a Mann-Whitney U test to identify significant statistical differences between the groups. Results indicated non-normal distributions for specific variables such as Area_S(1,0) and S(1,0)SumOfSqs, while others like S(1,0)Entropy displayed normal distributions. The findings revealed no significant statistical differences in the primary outcomes between the xenograft and allograft groups. However, the average values of the gray shades of pixels in the allograft group were statistically significantly higher compared to the xenograft group, suggesting differences in bone texture post-procedure.