Quality of dental implants

Abstract

Background: Clinicians need quality research data to decide which dental implant should be selected for patient treatment. Aim(s)/objective(s): To present the scientific evidence for claims of relationship between characteristics of dental implants and clinical performance . Study design: Systematic search of promotional material and Internet sites to find claims of implant superiority related to specific characteristics of the implant, and of the dental research literature to find scientific support for the claims. Main outcome measures: Critical appraisal of the research documentation to establish the scientific external and internal validity as a basis for the likelihood of reported treatment outcomes as a function of implant characteristics. Results: More than 220 implant brands have been identified , produced by about 80 manufacturers. The implants are made from different materials, undergo different surface treatments and come in different shapes, lengths , widths and forms . The dentist can in theory choose among more than 2,000 implants in a given patient treatment situation . Implants made from titanium and titanium alloys appear to perform well clinically in properly surgically prepared bone, regardless of small variations of shapes and forms . Various surface treatments are currently being developed to improve the capacity of a more rapid anchorage of the implant into bone . A substantial number of claims made by different manufacturers on alleged superiority due to design characteristics are not based on sound and longterm clinical scientific research. Implants are , in some parts of the world, manufactured and sold with no demonstration of adherence to any international standards . Conclusions: The scientific literature does not provide any clear directives to claims of alleged benefits of specific morphological characteristics of dental implants.

Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: A systematic review

“…They were classified in category C according to the strength of evidence and clearly indicate a lower quality of data compared with prospective studies. 24 This clearly points out the need for clinical studies with better designs. No RCTs existed which directly compared the incidence of abutment screw loosening between external and internal connection implant systems.…”

“…The final included studies that passed the second phase in the review process were classified according to the strength of evidence into 4 categories according to Jokstad et al 24 : (1) A1, controlled clinical trial with patient randomization (RCT); (2) A2, controlled clinical trial with split-mouth randomization (split-mouth RCT); (3) B, prospective controlled trial without randomization (CCT); and (4) C, clinical studies with different designs than categories A and B (retrospective, case series, etc).…”

Dental İmplantlarda Yapisal Ve Yüzey Özelli̇kleri̇

“…1,4 Günümüzde osteointegrasyon klinik başarı ile ortak anlamda kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. 5 Osteointegrasyon, dental implantların uzun dönem başarısı için şarttır.…”

“…Bu nedenle düz silindirik implantlara oranla yivli implantlar kuvvet dağılımlarındaki avantajları nedeniyle daha uygun tasarım olarak bildirilmiştir. 1,13 Yivler başlangıçta teması azamiye çıkartmak, yüzey alanını genişletmek ve kemik-implant ara yüzündeki kuvvetleri dağıtmak amacıyla tasarlanmış-lardır. Dental implantlardaki yivlerin geometrisi oldukça çeşitli olmakla beraber temel 4 tip yiv mevcuttur.…”

Implant-abutment Selection: A Literature Review

“…Implant dentistry evolved over about five decades and along with it evolved the restorative techniques and components to meet the high demands of various challenging clinical scenarios. Currently, there are more than 80 manufacturers 1 of implants all over the world and each one has different series of components or variations to make it unique. This scenario puts the clinician in a dilemma of selecting an appro priate abutment to accomplish the case satisfactorily especially if the implant placement has been challenging or compromized.…”