The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate and compare implant survival, marginal bone loss, and clinical and prosthetic complications in healthy patients and patients with type I diabetes undergoing full arch implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. A total of 47 patients needing total fixed rehabilitation of one or both arches were enrolled for this study. Based on the absence of any systemic diseases (Group A) or the presence of type I diabetes (Group B), the sample was divided into two groups. According to the grade of bone atrophy in the posterior region, patients received full arch rehabilitation (of one or both jaws) with 6 axial implants or, if the residual posterior bone height was insufficient, All-on-Four rehabilitation and a total 236 dental implants were placed. Follow-up visits were performed 1 week after surgery, at 3 and 6 months and then once a year for the next 10 years. No statistically significant differences between groups were recorded about implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, or clinical and prosthetic complications. However, concerning complications, post-surgical bleeding and wound infection were recorded in Group A more than in Group B. In cases of compensated diabetes compensation, implant placement could be considered a safe procedure.

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the ultrasonic piezoelectric inserts of EMS Steel Tip A, EMS Peek, and IS‐TiP‐STS‐3E© in reducing peri‐implant bacterial load without compromising the surface of implants during professional oral hygiene in the follow‐up. Materials and methods Thirteen implants were examined (Winsix, Biosafin, Ancona, Italy). The implants were divided into five groups and analyzed with a SEM microscope and microbiological analysis to evaluate the possible modification of structure and the bacterial load reduction. Results The control and A, B, and C test groups were initially contaminated in vitro with Streptococcus mutans. Subsequently, the A, B, and C test groups were treated by an only expert operator in standard conditions. Test groups A, B, and C were inoculated for 3 hr and, furthermore, microbiologically analyzed. Conclusion The gold standard of an implant maintenance is a significant reduction of the bacterial load without becoming aggressive. According to our results, despite the limitations of the study, the authors recommend the least aggressive IS‐TiP‐STS‐3E©, but combined with an antimicrobial agent to reduce the bacterial load, because the IS‐TiP‐STS‐3E© did not show appreciable results versus the EMS Peek in reducing the bacterial load.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications of implants placed through sinus floor elevation and tilted implants engaged in basal bone to bypass the maxillary sinus. Sixty patients were enrolled for this study. According to the residual bone height of the posterior maxilla, the sample was divided into three groups of 20 patients: Group A (lateral sinus floor elevation), Group B (transcrestal sinus floor elevation), and Group C (tilted implants employed to bypass the sinus floor). Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at three and six months, and then once a year for the next 4 years. The outcomes were the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications. Although Groups A, B, and C demonstrated implant survival rates of 83.3%, 86.7%, and 98.3%, respectively, the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were also not found concerning marginal bone loss, as recorded by intra-oral X-ray measurements during follow-up examinations. Regarding complications, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis. To reduce possible surgical risks, implant placement in basal bone could be preferred.