Studies on ILI show that successful outcome can be expected, if the previous criteria are fulfilled. It seems that ILI demonstrate a greater risk for implant failure when compared to CLI, although the survival rates were high for both the procedures. The use of different surgical procedures, type of prostheses, loading times and have very different study designs. This lack of homogeneity limits the relevance of the conclusions that can be drawn.

There is insufficient evidence in literature to determine possible advantages or disadvantages of IIP, EIP or DIP. Studies suggest that IIP and EIP may be at higher risks of implant failures and complications than delayed implants; on the other hand the aesthetic outcome might be better when placing implants just after teeth extraction.

SUMMARYPurpose. The aim of our study is to evaluate the ability of a new type of implant (Konus Implant System®, Industrie biomediche e farmaceutiche, Italy) to isolate the internal of an implant-abutment connection from the external environment. Materials and methods. To identify the capability of the implant to protect the internal space from the external environment, the passage of genetically modified Escherichia coli across implant-abutment interface was evaluated. Implants were immerged in a bacterial culture for twenty-four hours and then bacteria amount was measured inside implant-abutment interface with Real-time PCR. Results. Bacteria were detected inside all studied implants, with a median percentage of 18% for Porphiromonas Gingivalis and 19% for Tannerella Forsythia. Conclusion. The reported results are similar to previous work. Konus Implant System ® showed bacterial leakage similar respect others implant systems (18% Porphiromonas Gingivalis, 19% Tannerella Forsitya versus 20% of Bicon© and Ankylos® systems). In spite of the limits of our study, none two-piece implant system has been demonstrated to perfectly close the gap between implant and abutment.