Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Submerged and Nonsubmerged Bone‐Level Implants with Internal Hexagonal Connections in Immediate Implantation: A 5‐Year Retrospective Study

Abstract

High CSRs and good marginal bone levels were achieved 5 years after immediate implantation of bone-level implants with internal hexagonal connections using both the submerged and nonsubmerged techniques. Factors such as implant length, site, and application of guided bone regeneration did not have an impact on the long-term success of the implants.

Multifunctional effects of a modification of SLA titanium implant surface with strontium‐containing nanostructures on immunoinflammatory and osteogenic cell function

“…[1][2][3] A Ti implant surface with hierarchically complex porous surface structures at the macron/micron/submicron scale obtained by sandblasting/ acid-etching process is a representative of the commercially available oral implant surfaces with good osteogenic capacity used in clinical practice. [1][2][3] However, further surface modification is required to achieve a more rapid and predictable Ti implant osseointegration outcome, especially in cases of unfavorable local bone conditions. For this reason, recent studies have attempted to improve the healing speed and predictability of long-term clinical success of load-bearing Ti implants, especially in cases of poor bone quality, by additional modification of microstructured Ti implants using chemical and nanotopographical surface techniques.…”

“…In conventional oral implants, surface microstructural modification of endosseous titanium (Ti) implants is regarded as a fundamental method for producing osteoconductive titanium (Ti) oral implant surface . A Ti implant surface with hierarchically complex porous surface structures at the macron/micron/submicron scale obtained by sandblasting/acid‐etching process is a representative of the commercially available oral implant surfaces with good osteogenic capacity used in clinical practice . However, further surface modification is required to achieve a more rapid and predictable Ti implant osseointegration outcome, especially in cases of unfavorable local bone conditions.…”

Bone loss-related factors in tissue and bone level dental implants: a systematic review of clinical trials

“…Seven studies applied grafts in their surgical procedures 2,16,40 in which 4 of them indicated the use of autogenous bone grafts 5,15,41,42 . In addition, 10 studies mentioned guided bone regeneration (GBR) in their methods 3,8,9,19,20,25,26,[43][44][45] .…”

“…Implant placement areas: In 10 articles, implants were inserted in the maxilla 10,15,16,19,23,24,33,34,43,45 , while 4 studies chose the mandible as the placement area 1,6,28,31 . In 22 studies, implants were inserted in both jaws 2,3,5,8,13,20,[25][26][27]29,30,32,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]44,46 . Two studies did not state which jaw was used 9,22 .…”

Risk Indicators for Implant Therapy on Periodontitis

“…In a systematic review, Ong et al concluded that there is some evidence that patients treated for periodontitis may experience higher bone loss and peri-implantitis than non-periodontitis patients, which affects long-term success rate of implant [19,20]. Wu et al used a 5-year retrospective study to show that factors such as implant length, site, and application of guided bone regeneration did not have an impact on the long-term success of the implants [21].…”