60 Years of Innovation, Research, and Clinical Excellence

From the pioneering days of Per-Ingvar Brånemark’s visionary work to the global impact of modern dental implantology, this landmark volume traces the remarkable journey of osseointegration. Edited by Tomas Albrektsson and Bruno Chrcanovic—two of the most respected minds in the field—the book brings together a unique blend of historical insight, clinical milestones, and future-facing perspectives.

Featuring personal recollections, untold stories, and expert contributions from international leaders such as George Zarb, Paulo Malo, Matts Andersson, Oded Bahat, and many more, this book captures the scientific and human spirit behind one of medicine’s most transformative discoveries.

Published to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the first fully edentulous patient treated with osseointegrated implants, this volume is more than a celebration of the past—it is a guiding compass for the next generation of clinicians, scientists, and innovators.

Background: Two-piece zirconia implants offer a metal-free alternative to titanium implants, but only limited long-term data are available. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of two different, identically designed two-piece zirconia implants (NobelPearl™ and Zeramex XT) in a private dental practice.

Material and methods: Between 2017 and 2024, 167 implants were placed in 106 patients and followed up to 88 months (Ø 39.1 months). In addition to the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), clinical parameters and surface properties were examined using 3D profilometry. The statistical analysis included descriptive evaluations and a survival analysis using the life table method.

Results: Three implants were lost (two fractures, one failed osseointegration), corresponding to an effective survival rate of 98.2%. The mean marginal bone loss varied between -0.14 mm and -0.58 mm. The surface roughness was minimal (Sa ~0.5 µm). No risk factor showed a significant association with implant loss in the univariate analysis.

Conclusion: Two-piece, screw-retained zirconia implants showed a high survival rate and stable peri-implant tissue conditions over a period of up to seven years. They represent a promising metal-free alternative to titanium implants. Further prospective long-term studies are needed to validate these results and to better understand potential risk factors.

PURPOSE: To present a survival analysis of 133 consecutively placed moderately rough implants, all with a total follow-up of 20 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 133 implants of the same brand placed in 46 patients at the same county clinic in Sweden were followed up prospectively over 20 years and analyzed for survival and bone height, the latter evaluated in periapical radiographs.

RESULTS: A total of 7 implants failed, 4 of which were in the same patient. Implant failure was associated with a combination of smoking and bruxism in 5 of the 7 failed cases. A 20-year survival rate of 94.7% was observed. Average marginal bone loss (MBL) at 20 years of follow-up was 0.543 ± 1.193 mm, with 9 implants having more than 2 mm of MBL. A total of 20 patients with 25 implants dropped out of the study; however, if death of the patient is excluded as a dropout reason, only 3 implants in 3 patients were unaccounted for.

CONCLUSIONS: Good clinical results in the 95% survival range were observed with moderately rough implants over a 20-year follow-up period.

Purpose: Marginal bone resorption (MBR) around dental implants may sometimes be a self-limiting condition due to balancing immunologic reactions against utilized materials rather than a progressive bacterial infection. Contrary to previous assumptions from ligature-induced experimental peri-implantitis studies, a recent 8-week experiment by the present authors showed that marginal ligatures trigger an inflammatory immune response, resulting in bone resorption around implants in the absence of plaque. The present study aimed to investigate whether this inflammatory/immunologic reaction attenuates or progresses toward implant failure after a longer healing time (12 weeks).

Materials and methods: Sterile silk ligatures were placed around the top of titanium (Ti) implants and compressed against the femoral cortical bone plate of six rabbits. A nonligated implant was used as a control. After 12 weeks of submerged healing, ground sections of implants and surrounding tissues were investigated with light microscopy. The marginal soft tissues were also analyzed using selected quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) markers.

Results: Histologically, the ligatures were outlined by immune cells, including multinucleated giant cells (MNGCs), with adjacent fibrous encapsulation and resorbed peripheral bone that contrasted from the osseointegrated nonligated control implants. The difference in expression of qPCR markers was not significant, but > two-fold upregulation of markers CD11b, IL1β, ARG1, NCF1, and CD4 and > twofold downregulation of CD8 indicated a mild, focal inflammatory/immune response against the ligatures compared to controls, with upregulation of M1 and M2 macrophages, neutrophils, and helper T-cells as well as downregulation of killer T cells. Further, the bone formation markers OC and ALPL were > two-fold downregulated (consistent with the lack of osseointegration of the ligatures) compared to control implants.

Conclusions: Marginal silk ligatures trigger an inflammatory/immune response and aseptic bone resorption around implants. Compared to the previous 8-week study, the inflammatory reaction against the silk appears to attenuate with time, with only a mild persisting inflammation that may block osseointegration; instead, a fibrous tissue encapsulation-type reaction is maintained. This may explain why traditional ligature experiments have required regular exchange of ligatures for the bone resorption to progress.

PURPOSE: To investigate the biomechanical and immunological reactions to coated and non-coated blasted PEEK implants in vivo after 12 weeks and review the associated literature.

METHODS: Two osteotomy sites were performed in each proximal tibia of 10 lop-eared rabbits (n= 4 per rabbit). Each rabbit received a randomly placed (1) blasted zirconium phosphate nano-coated PEEK- (nano-ZrP), (2) blasted PEEK- (PEEK) and (3) titanium implant (Ti) and an empty sham site. At 12 weeks, removal torque of all implants and biological investigation with qPCR was performed. The implant surfaces were analyzed prior to insertion with interferometry, SEM and XPS.

RESULTS: The interferometry analysis showed that there was no difference in roughness for the uncoated PEEK compared to the ZrP coated PEEK implants. The titanium implants were considerably smoother (Sa= 0.23 µm) than the uncoated Sa= 1.11 µm) and ZrP coated PEEK implants (Sa= 1.12 µm). SEM analysis on the PEEK implants corroborated the interferometry results; no difference in structure between the uncoated vs. the ZrP coated PEEK was visible on the micrometer level. At higher magnifications, the ZrP coating was visible in the SEM as a thin, porous network. All tested implants displayed osseointegration with the highest RTQ for nano-ZrP (18.4 Ncm) followed by PEEK (14.5 Ncm) and Ti (11.5 Ncm). All implants activated the immune system, with elevated macrophage and M2 macrophage qPCR markers at 12 weeks compared to the sham site.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Nano-ZrP coating improves osseointegration of blasted PEEK implants at 12 weeks of follow-up. Osseointegration of titanium, PEEK and nano-ZrP PEEK is not a normal bone healing process, but rather a shield-off mechanism that appears to be regulated by the innate immune system.

Purpose: After some initial setbacks in the 1970s, ceramic implants seem to be a promising alternative to titanium implants. Since the surface of an implant system represents the interface to surrounding biologic structures, the study focuses on cleanliness and surface topography. Clinical documentation of the corresponding systems completes the picture and allows a better evaluation of zirconia implant systems. Materials and Methods: Five different ceramic implant systems were selected randomly and purchased via blind-shopping: Z5s (Z-Systems), ZiBone (COHO), W implant (TAVDental), ceramic. implant (vitaclinical), and BioWin!/Standard Zirkon Implantat (Champions-Implants/ZV3 system). Three samples of each implant system underwent scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging and elemental analysis (EDS). Where appropriate, subsequent Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) was performed to identify the chemical nature of impurities. Surface topography was evaluated, and a search for clinical trials in the PubMed database, on the websites and by written request to each dental implant manufacturer, was performed. Results: Surfaces of Champions implants (ZV3) and Z-Systems implants were relatively clean, whereas the other investigated surfaces of vitaclinical, TAV Dental, and ZiBone implants all displayed organic contaminations on their surfaces. Four of the investigated ceramic implants showed a moderately rough implant surface. Only the vitaclinical ceramic.implant had minimal surface roughness. Three ceramic designs—vitaclinical, ZV3, and Z-Systems—had clinical trials documented with up to 3 years of follow-up and results varying between 82.5% and 100% survival. TAV Dental W and ZiBone implant systems lacked properly conducted clinical recording of results. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that it is technically possible to produce zirconia implants that are largely residue-free. On the other hand, the variety of significant residues found in this analysis raises concerns, as contamination may lead to undesirable biologic effects. The lack of clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals does not seem to be relevant for the approval of marketing, nor does the lack of surface cleanliness. In the authors’ opinion, a critical analysis of these aspects should be included in a more stringent future analysis prior to the marketing of oral implant systems.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present evidence that supports the notion that the primary reason behind marginal bone loss and implant failure is immune-based and that bacterial actions in the great majority of problematic cases are of a secondary nature. Materials and Methods: The paper is written as a narrative review. Results: Evidence is presented that commercially pure titanium is not biologically inert, but instead activates the innate immune system of the body. For its function, the clinical implant is dependent on an immune/inflammatory defense against bacteria. Biologic models such as ligature studies have incorrectly assumed that the primary response causing marginal bone loss is due to bacterial action. In reality, bacterial actions are secondary to an imbalance of the innate immune system caused by the combination of titanium implants and ligatures, ie, nonself. This immunologic imbalance may lead to marginal bone resorption even in the absence of bacteria. Conclusion: Marginal bone loss and imminent oral implant failure cannot be properly analyzed without a clear understanding of immunologically caused tissue responses.

Purpose: To compare clinical and esthetic outcomes between immediately loaded single implants placed with and without a fully guided surgical procedure. Materials and Methods: Patients with a missing maxillary tooth (second premolar to second premolar) were considered for inclusion in this 1-year prospective nonrandomized study. Exclusion criteria were general health contraindications for oral surgery besides the need for bone grafting or ridge augmentation. One group received digital implant planning, fully guided surgery, and immediate loading (DIL). The other group received freehand surgery and immediate loading (IL). Outcome measures were implant survival, marginal bone loss, soft tissue changes, papilla index, pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES, respectively), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results: Two of 21 implants failed in the DIL group soon after placement, resulting in a 1-year implant survival rate of 90.5%, while no implants failed in the IL group. Significantly higher papilla index scores and lower soft tissue changes were found for the DIL group compared to the IL group. No differences were found after 1 year regarding marginal bone loss, PES, WES, or PROMs. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, immediate loading in combination with fully guided surgery might negatively affect implant survival. Immediate loading, fully guided surgery, and a digital workflow appear to have a positive effect on early soft tissue adaptation.

Zygomatic-related implant rehabilitation differs from traditional implant treatment in biomechanics, clinical procedures, outcomes, and eventual complications such as soft tissue incompetence or recession that may lead to recurrent sinus/soft tissue complications. The extreme maxillary atrophy that indicates the use of zygomatic implants prevents use of conventional criteria to describe implant success/failure. Currently, results and complications of zygomatic implants reported in the literature are inconsistent and lack a standardized systematic review. Moreover, protocols for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic implants have been in continuous evolution. The current zygomatic approach is relatively new, especially if the head of the zygomatic implant is located in an extramaxillary area with interrupted alveolar bone around its perimeter. Specific criteria to describe success/survival of zygomatic implants are necessary, both to write and to read scientific literature related to zygomatic implant-based oral rehabilitations. The aim of this article was to review the criteria of success used for traditional and zygomatic implants and to propose a revisited Zygomatic Success Code describing specific criteria to score the outcome of a rehabilitation anchored on zygomatic implants. The ORIS acronym is used to name four specific criteria to systematically describe the outcome of zygomatic implant rehabilitation: offset measurement as evaluation of prosthetic positioning; rhino-sinus status report based on a comparison of presurgical and postsurgical cone beam computed tomography in addition to a clinical questionnaire; infection permanence as evaluation of soft tissue status; and stability report, accepting as success some mobility until dis-osseointegration signs appear. Based on these criteria, the assessment of five possible conditions when evaluating zygomatic implants is possible.

The extreme maxillary atrophy that indicates the use of zygomatic implants (ZI) is associated with resorptive changes in both alveolar and basal bone, and prevents direct placement of conventional endosseous implants. Therefore, using conventional criteria to describe implant success/failure is not sensible for ZI. Moreover, protocols for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using ZI have been continuously evolving to overcome initial shortcomings of early initial shortcomings of early techniques. The current zygomatic approach is relatively new, especially if the head of the ZI is located in an extra-maxillary buccal position to the alveolar crest with no alveolar bone around its perimeter. The zygomatic-related rehabilitation protocol differs from conventional implant therapy with respect to biomechanics, clinical procedures, outcomes, and eventual complications such as soft tissue incompetence or recession that may lead to recurrent sinus/soft tissue infections and aesthetic patient complaints. Currently, the way in which results and complications of ZI are reported in the scientific literature is inconsistent and lacks a standardized approach. Specific criteria to describe success/survival of ZI, including a standardized way to report on rhinosinus pathology associated with ZI, is necessary. The aim of this chapter is to critically review success criteria used for conventional and zygomatic implants. Finally, a revisited Zygomatic Success Code describing specific criteria to score the outcome of a rehabilitation anchored on ZI is proposed. The authors use the ORIS acronym to name four specific criteria to systematically describe the outcome of ZI rehabilitation:

• Offset: evaluation of prosthetic success based on the final positioning of the zygomatic implant with respect to the middle of the alveolar crest in the horizontal dimension.
• Rhinosinus status report: a pre, and postsurgical cone-beam computed tomography comparative approach to evaluating whether sinuses are healthy; a clinical questionnaire where “yes” and “no” answers can be given.
• Infection permanence related to dehiscence: an evaluation of soft tissue signs of infection or dehiscence on a grading scale based on reference photographs.
• Stability report: accepting as success some mobility until dis-osseointegration signs of rotation or apical pain present.