PURPOSE: There is no clinical consensus to determine the right balance between underpreparation and marginal bone level changes. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-regression was to investigate the influence of the type of drilling preparation of the implant site in relation to the bone mineral density on the clinical success, expressed in terms of the MBL and implant failure rate.

STUDY SELECTION: A thorough search was performed using the digital databases MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials by entering research lines or various combinations of free words. The main keywords used were "dental implants", "bone density", and "torque".

RESULTS: The mean bone resorption in the conventional preparation group was -0.43 (± 0.28) mm, whereas it was -0.80 (± 0.37) mm in the underprepared group. For the D1/D2/D3 bone group, the slope was significantly different from zero and linearity; the D4 bone group slope was not significantly different from zero and was almost parallel, although it was significantly different from linearity. The box and whiskers plot shows that the MBL in underprepared sites tended to be significantly higher with a higher variation than that in conventionally prepared sites.

CONCLUSION: Within its limits, our meta-regression analysis showed that MBL is influenced by the type of drilling preparation and bone mineral density. In particular, a lower MBL was observed in the D1 bone with conventional preparation than with underpreparation. Moreover, a greater implant-to-osteotomy site mismatch was positively associated with greater MBLs in the bone densities of D1/D2/D3.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether salivary contamination during placement of implants with different surface characteristics affects osseointegration in native and in augmented bone areas.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty eight implants with machined surface (MS) and 48 implants with moderately rough surface (RS) were tested in the calvaria of 12 sheep. At the first surgery, 64 bony critical defects were randomly created and were subsequently augmented with two materials (autogenous or bovine bone). After 5 weeks of graft healing, 8 implants were placed per sheep, in native bone and in the centre of the augmented defects. Forty eight implants were soaked with saliva before placement (contaminated group [CG]), while 48 implants were not (non-contaminated group [NCG]). Five weeks after implant placement, bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone material area fraction occupancy (BMAFO) were calculated histomorphometrically.

RESULTS: Saliva contamination showed a significant negative effect (p = .000) on BIC, especially in augmented areas. RS showed significant positive effect on BIC, compared to MS (p = .000), while there were no significant differences for different bone conditions (p = .103). For BMAFO, the contamination showed a significantly negative affect (p = .000), while there were no significant differences for surface characteristics (p = .322) and for bone condition (p = .538).

CONCLUSION: Saliva contamination during dental implant placement has a negative effect on osseointegration in augmented areas. Moderately rough surface has a possible advantage in the aspect of initial bone to implant contact. However, it seems to be advisable to avoid saliva contamination especially for implants placed in augmented bone areas.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of surface hydrophilicity on the biomechanical aspects of osseointegration of dental implants in the tibia and femur of rabbits. Forty-eight mature female New Zealand White rabbits were included, and 96 commercially pure, Grade 4, titanium dental implants (control group), and 96 implants of same macro geometry with the hydrophilic surface (test group) were used in this study. One osteotomy was performed in each tibia and femur on both sides of the rabbit, and four implants were placed in each rabbit. Control and test groups were randomly allocated on the left and right sides. During surgery, insertion torque (ITQ) value of the complete implant placement was recorded. After healing periods of 0, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after surgery, Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) value, and removal torque (RTQ) values were measured. No statistical difference was observed for ITQ, for ISQ and for RTQ between the control group and test group in tibia/femur for all time periods. The effect of hydrophilic properties on moderately roughened surfaces has no impact in terms of biomechanical outcomes (ISQ values and RTQ values) after a healing period of 2 to 8 weeks in rabbit tibias /femurs.

PURPOSE: The aim of this multi-scale in silico study was to evaluate the influence of resorption cavities on the mechanical properties and load distribution in cortical bone after implant placement with two different drilling protocols.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two different micro-scale bone structures were assessed: cortical bone models with cavities (test) and without cavities (control) were designed from μCT data. In a macro-scale model, representing a mandibular ridge, oblique load of 150 N was applied on the implant-abutment. Maximum principal stress/strain, and shear stress/strain were calculated in the macro- and micro-scale models.

RESULTS: Test presented anisotropic material properties. In tests, significantly greater maximum values of Maximum principal stress/strain were calculated in micro-scale model. These values were located at the implant neck area in the macro-scale model and in the proximity of cavities in the micro-scale model respectively. Greater values of shear stress/strain were found in the test along the mandibular horizontal plane.

CONCLUSIONS: Cortical bone with resorption cavities following undersized drilling showed an impaired load distribution compared with bone without cavities. Subsequently, stress/strain distribution suggests that this bone model is more prone to microdamage, thus delaying the healing process.

This study investigated the level of magnetic energy around implants possessing a static magnetic field (SMF) and assessed the in vivo influence of SMF on bone regeneration. Implants possessing a sintered neodymium magnet internally were placed in a rabbit femur. An implant without SMF was placed as control. After 12 weeks of healing in vivo, the bone samples were subjected to histologic/histomorphometric evaluation. The bone-to-implant contact for the test group and the control group were 32.4 +/- 13.6% and 17.1 +/- 4.5%, respectively, and the differences were statistically significant (P < .05). The results suggested that the SMF promoted new bone apposition.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of misfit at implant-level fixed partial dentures (ILFPDs) and marginal bone support on the generation of implant cracks. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study included a mechanical fatigue test and finite element analysis. A mechanical cycling loading test was performed using 16 experimental models, each consisting of two parallel implants subdivided into four groups based on the misfit and the supporting bone condition. The framework, firmly seated at implants, was dynamically loaded vertically with a force of 1,600/160 N and 15 Hz for 1 × 106 cycles. Optical microscope, scanning electron microscope (SEM), and computed tomography three-dimensional (CT-3D) analyses were performed to detect impairments. Finite element models, representing the setups in the mechanical fatigue test, were used to represent the fatigue life. Results: None of the mechanical components presented distortion or fracture at the macroscopic level during the test. In a microscopy evaluation, the fatigue test revealed scratches visible in the inner part of the conical portion of the implants regardless of the groups. SEM and CT-3D analysis revealed one implant from the misfit/no bone loss group with a microfracture in the inner part of the conical interface. The simulated effective stress levels in the coronal body were higher in the misfit groups compared with the no misfit groups. The misfit groups presented effective stress levels, above 375 MPa, that penetrated the entire wall thickness. The no bone loss group presented an effective stress level above 375 MPa along its axial direction. In the no misfit group, the area presenting effective stress levels above 375 MPa in the conical connection was larger for the bone loss group compared with the no bone loss group. Conclusion: This study confirmed that implant fracture is an unlikely adverse event. A clear pattern of effective distribution greater than fatigue limit stresses could be noticed when the misfit was present. The dynamic load simulation demonstrated that the crack is more likely to occur when implants are fully supported by marginal bone compared with a bone loss scenario. Within the limitations of this study, it is speculated that marginal bone loss might follow the appearance of an undetected crack. Further research is needed to develop safe clinical protocols with regard to ILFPD.

Our aim was to investigate the possible impact of contamination with saliva on osseointegration during placement of implants with simultaneous bone augmentation. Six hemispheric shape bone defects (8mm in diameter×4mm deep) were prepared in each iliac bone of six sheep. A dental implant (2.9mm in diameter×10mm long) was placed in the centre of each defect, and then pairs of defects were filled with one of the following bone augmentation materials: autogenous bone, autogenous bone plus bovine bone, or resorbable biphasic ceramic bone substitute. One site in each augmentation group was impregnated with saliva (contaminated group), while the other was not (non-contaminated group). Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) within implant threads were measured after a healing period of five weeks, both in respect of the implant inserted in the augmented bone and in that inserted in the residual bone. Overall results showed that there was a significant difference between the contaminated and non-contaminated group for BIC in the augmented implant (p=0.028), while there were no significant differences in the implant in residual bone (p=0.722). For BAFO, there were no significant differences between the contaminated and non-contaminated groups among the different augmentation materials. The results showed that contamination with saliva during placement of an implant with simultaneous bone augmentation had a serious deleterious effect on osseointegration of the aspect of the implant within the augmented defect. Contamination with saliva during placement of an implant with simultaneous bone augmentation should therefore be avoided.

Our aim was to try and find out whether contamination with saliva during insertion of dental implants affects osseointegration in bone that has been augmented with different grafts. Six bony defects were created in each of the calvaria of six sheep, and then augmented with three different materials (autogenous bone, bovine bone, and resorbable biphasic ceramic bone substitute) After five weeks of healing, three implants contaminated with saliva (contaminated group) and three not contaminated (uncontaminated group) were placed in the centre of the augmented areas. For histomorphometric analysis, bone implant contact, bone area fraction occupancy, bone and material area, and bony area were measured after a healing period of five weeks. There was a significant difference between the contaminated and uncontaminated groups (p=0.036) for bone implant contact only in the augmented areas, but there were no significant differences in bone area fraction occupancy, bone and material area, and bony area. We conclude that contamination with saliva during placement of dental implants can significantly compromise bone implant contact in augmented areas, but had no significant effect on the formation of bone in areas more distant from the surface of the implant. We suggest that salivary contamination should be avoided during placement of dental implants in augmented areas.

Background: Bone overheating during osteotomy preparation for dental implant has been extensively investigated. However, thermal changes during implant insertion were seldom reported. Several factors might influence heat generation, such as the osteotomy dimension, implant surface and the friction between implant and bone. A common approach to reach high levels of primary stability is to undersize the implant osteotomy and the use of rough implant surfaces, which might increase the risk of bone overheating.

Aim/Hypothesis: The aim was to evaluate the in vivo bone temperature change at implant placement using different osteotomy dimensions, implant surfaces and frictional characteristics. It is hypothesized that the insertion in an undersized osteotomy would generate a greater temperature change.

Materials and Methods: On ten female Finnish Dorset crossbred sheep, four implants were placed in both metatarsal bones. To modify the implant-bone friction, the presence of a lubricant body fluid (sheep saliva) was tested. Eight experimental groups were created based on the following features- undersized and conventional osteotomy, moderately rough and turned surface, presence and absence of a lubricant fluid on the implant surface (Table 1). Intraosseous bone temperature was measured with a type-K thermocouple. The position of the sensor tip was at the distance of 1 mm from implant surface and depth of 2 mm from bone surface. Bone temperature was continuously measured from just before implant placement until 1 minute after the implant placement. Maximum and minimum values were registered. The values of temperature change for each implant were calculated. Three-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the influence of the osteotomy preparation, implant surface and frictional characteristics.

Results: The mean values of temperature change were 6.4 8,2, 4.0, 5.1, 8.1, 9.6, 3.4, and 5.2 degrees Celsius increase respectively from Group 1 to 8 (Figure 1). Regarding the surgical drilling protocol, the overall test showed that undersized groups showed significantly higher temperature than conventional osteotomy groups (P value = 0.000). In the presence or absence of a lubricant body fluid, the overall test showed that absence of a lubricant body fluid, showed significant higher temperature change than when it was present (P value = 0.002). Differences of implant surface topography, the overall test presented no statistical differences between moderately rough surface and turned surface (P value = 0.651).

Conclusion and Clinical Implications: Intraosseous temperature change during implant insertion was mainly affected by osteotomy dimension. Undersized osteotomy induces a greater risk of bone overheating. The presence of a lubricant fluid on implant surface reduced the temperature increase, while surface characteristics did not show any influence on temperature modifications. To reduce the risk of implant failure due to bone overheating, implant installation in undersized sites should be cautiously performed in cortical bone.

BACKGROUND: The intraosseous temperature during implant installation has never been evaluated in an in vivo controlled setup. The aims were to investigate the influence of a drilling protocol and implant surface on the intraosseous temperature during implant installation, to evaluate the influence of temperature increase on osseointegration and to calculate the heat distribution in cortical bone. METHODS: Forty Branemark implants were installed into the metatarsal bone of Finnish Dorset crossbred sheep according to two different drilling protocols (undersized/non-undersized) and two surfaces (moderately rough/turned). The intraosseous temperature was recorded, and Finite Element Model (FEM) was generated to understand the thermal behavior. Non-decalcified histology was carried out after five weeks of healing. The following osseointegration parameters were calculated: Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), Bone Area Fraction Occupancy (BAFO), and Bone Area Fraction Occupancy up to 1.5 mm (BA1.5). A multiple regression model was used to identify the influencing variables on the histomorphometric parameters. RESULTS: The temperature was affected by the drilling protocol, while no influence was demonstrated by the implant surface. BIC was positively influenced by the undersized drilling protocol and rough surface, BAFO was negatively influenced by the temperature rise, and BA1.5 was negatively influenced by the undersized drilling protocol. FEM showed that the temperature at the implant interface might exceed the limit for bone necrosis. CONCLUSION: The intraosseous temperature is greatly increased by an undersized drilling protocol but not from the implant surface. The temperature increase negatively affects the bone healing in the proximity of the implant. The undersized drilling protocol for Branemark implant systems increases the amount of bone at the interface, but it negatively impacts the bone far from the implant.