No abstract

BackgroundThe goal of the current study is to assess the difference in connective tissue adherence to laser microtextured versus machined titanium abutments.Material and MethodsSix patients were selected and each of them received 2 implants, one combined with a laser treated abutment and one with a machined abutment. After three months, the abutments were retrieved together with their surrounding gingival tissue for histological analysis. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of microscopical images was performed to assess the presence or absence of adherence between the soft tissues and the abutment, and the percentage of soft tissue adhered to the two different surfaces.ResultsIntimate adherence between connective tissue and the laser treated abutments, while on machined abutments no adherence was detected. A significant difference was found in the percentage of surface in contact with soft tissue between both implant abutments p=0.03.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of the current study, it can be concluded that connective tissues show enhanced adherence to microtextured abutments compared to machined abutments. Key words:Abutment, connective tissue, dental implant, gingiva, human, laser.

Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is the most extended method for measuring implant stability. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) is the measure obtained by different RFA devices; however, inter- and intra-rater reliability and agreement of these instruments remain unknown. Thirty implants were placed in three different pig mandibles. ISQ was measured parallel and perpendicular (lingual) to the peg axis with Osstell® Beacon, Penguin® and MegaISQ® by two different investigators and furthermore, one performed a test-retest. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the agreement. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.20 to 0.65 for the Osstell® Beacon; 0.57 to 0.86 for the Penguin®; and −0.01 to 0.60 for the MegaISQ®. The highest ISQ values were obtained using Penguin® (66.3) in a parallel measurement; the lowest, using the MegaISQ® (60.1) in a parallel measurement. The highest correlation values with the other devices were obtained by MegaISQ® in a parallel measurement. Osstell® Beacon and MegaISQ® showed lower reliability than Penguin®. Osstell® had good agreement for measuring ISQ both in parallel and perpendicular, and MegaISQ® had the best agreement for measuring ISQ in parallel.

Background: Actually, resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is the most extended method for measuring implant stability. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) is the measure obtained by the different RFA devices, however, inter- and intra- rater reliability and validity of some devices remains unknown. Methods: Thirty implants were placed in 3 different pig mandibles. ISQ was measured axial and parallel with Osstell® Beacon, Penguin® and MegaISQ® by 2 different operators and one operator performed a test-retest. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the validity. Results: The higher inter- and intra- rater reliability was obtained by Penguin® when measuring axial. The highest ISQ values were obtained using Penguin® in an axial measurement; the lowest, using the MegaISQ® in an axial measurement. The highest correlation values with the other devices were obtained by MegaISQ® measuring axially. Conclusion: Penguin® had a good reliability for measuring ISQ both inter- and intra- rater. Osstell® had good validity for measuring ISQ both axial and parallel and MegaISQ® had the best validity for measuring ISQ axial.

The study aimed to evaluate the survival and failure rate, in the short- and medium-term, in addition to its relationship with risk factors, in implants placed by postgraduate students of the Master of Medicine, Surgery, and Oral Implantology course from the University of Barcelona. The study was designed including 192 patients with 422 implants placed between 2015 and 2018. Variables of implant failure were evaluated and related. Failure was split into early failure and late failure. Qualitative data were compared using the chi-squared test, taking p ≤ 0.05 as a significant value. The comparison of quantitative variables was carried out using the Student’s t-test for independent samples. The survival rate in a period of 6 months to 3 years was 97.87%. The mean age of the patients was (54.5 ± 13), and the largest number of implants were placed in the 51–60 age range. The failure rate was 2.13% (N = 9), 6 failed early and 3 failed after definitive prosthetic loading, with a p value < 0.0001. When comparing the failures according to their location in the anterior/posterior sector of the arch, the anterior sector showed statistically significant results (p = 0.027). Failed implants had a statistically significant relationship when they were placed in the anterior sector and were performed in the early stage.