Journal of Osseointegration Journal of Osseointegration ©Ariesdue srl, Milano, Italy. Online version powered by PAGEPress Scientific Publications, Pavia, Italy en-US Journal of Osseointegration 2036-4121 A 3-D CAD/CAM technique in full-arch implant supported rehabilitations: the Virtual Implant-Prosthetic Procedure (VIPP Technique). A prospective longitudinal study <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></span></p> <p class="p2">&nbsp;</p> <p class="p3"><span class="s1"><strong>Aim </strong>The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success of a new three-dimensional CAD/CAM processing technique in full-arch implant supported rehabilitations of edentulous patients.</span></p> <p class="p3"><span class="s1"><strong>Materials and methods </strong>Healthy patients with edentulous mandible and/or maxilla arch were selected for the present study. The Full-Arch Implant Supported Virtual Protocol has been applied with immediate loading fixed rehabilitation. Effectiveness of digital and surgical planning, marginal bone loss, implant and prosthetic failure were recorded at 6-and 12 months follow up.</span></p> <p class="p3"><span class="s1"><strong>Results </strong>Seventy-six implants were placed in 15 patients, and 15 full arch<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>rehabilitations were delivered. Patients found<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>smile design previsualization very effective (93%),<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>guided surgery very effective (94%), and<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>immediate loading and temporization very effective (92%). No implant were lost (survival rate = 100%). At the 6-months radiographic evaluation, average perimplant crestal bone loss was 0.56 ± 0.12 mm for maxillary implants (n = 64 ), 0.59 ± 0.16 for mandibular implants (n = 12 ) and 12-months average perimplant crestal bone loss was 0.67 ± 0.11 mm for maxillary implants (n = 64 ) and 0.69 ± 0.16 for mandibular implants (n = 12 ). Two unscrewing episodes and one provisional prosthesis fracture occurred. No paresthesia and no prosthetic complications in definitive prostheses were registered in the whole sample.</span></p> <p class="p3"><span class="s1"><strong>Conclusions</strong> Within the limitations of the present study, the Virtual Implant-Prosthetic Procedure could be a satisfactory treatment in edentulous patients.</span></p> G. Gastaldi E. Gherlone M. Manacorda F. Ferrini F. Bova R. Vinci F. Cattoni ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-05-04 2018-05-04 10 1 2 10 10.23805/jo.2018.10.01.01 No-preparation ceramic veneers: a systematic review <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Aim </strong> The main objective of the present systematic review was to investigate the validation of no-preparation ceramic veneers as restorations.</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Materials and Methods </strong> Pubmed, Evidence-Based Dentistry, BMJ Clinical Evidence, Embase, Dynamed and Opengrey were analyzed in order to identify randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the clinical outcomes of no-preparation ceramic veneers; manual researches were performed as well.</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Results </strong> Database search produced 2551 records. After removal of duplicates and a careful examination of titles and abstracts, the reviewers excluded all of the studies. Manual and grey literature did not yield any other relevant article.</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Conclusions </strong> Due to the lack of data, at the moment achieving a definitive clinical statement regarding the “no-prep” technique is not possible. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of no-preparation ceramic veneers. No-prep veneers can be considered as conservative treatments which should be carefully recommended and request a cautious selection of cases. Further controlled clinical researches are necessary to clearly identify predictable clinical protocols and evaluate the long-term outcomes of such restorations.</span></p> F. Zarone R. Leone M. I. Di Mauro M. Ferrari R. Sorrentino ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-02 2018-03-02 10 1 17 22 10.23805/jo.2018.10.01.03 A comparative study of ridge preservation using calcium sulfate and collagen membrane with and without freeze-dried bone allograft following tooth extraction <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Aim</strong> Alveolar ridge resorption after tooth extraction is a growing challenge<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>in implant therapy. Various surgical techniques have been suggested to<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>minimize ridge volume loss. In this study, we compared the efficacy of medical grade calcium sulfate (MGCS) with and without freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) in alveolar ridge preservation.</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Materials and Methods</strong> In this randomized clinical trial, we assigned 77 premolar and molar extracted sockets to the following groups: MGCS (n=26), MGCS+FDBA (n=25), and control (no intervention; n=26). The filled sockets were covered by a collagen membrane. All groups returned 3 months after the intervention. We used a digital caliper and intraoral parallel radiography to assess changes in ridge width and height.</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Results</strong> A total of 64 out of 77 patients returned for the 3-month follow-up. No significant difference existed between the groups with respect to age, gender, type and position of the extracted teeth. The control group had significantly greater reductions in both ridge width and height compared to the MGCS and MGCS+FDBA groups (P&lt;0.0001). We observed no significant difference between the MGCS and MGCS+FDBA groups with respect to alterations in the alveolar ridge dimensions (P&gt;0.05). Men had significantly greater changes in ridge height compared to women (P&lt;0.01). Alterations in ridge width were significantly higher in the mandibular compared to maxillary teeth (P&lt;0.05).</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Conclusion</strong> There is no difference between effectiveness of MGCS and MGCS+FDBA in preserving human ridge dimensions up to 3 months after a tooth extraction. However, additional studies are proposed to verify these results.</span></p> R. Amirzargar G. Shirani H. Mahmoudhashemi A. Khoshzaban M. Hasheminejad ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-02 2018-03-02 10 1 11 16 10.23805/jo.2018.10.01.02 The biological complication of implant abutment materials. A systematic review and meta-analysis <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Aim </strong>The goal of this review was to identify the biological complication of implant abutment materials in relation to alveolar bone around implant-supported superstructure. </span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Methodology </strong>An electronic database search and a further<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>manual search were directed to select RCTs, and cohort studies that give evidence about different abutment materials complication. Pocket depth, amount of rescission and crestal bone loss were attributed to alveolar bone loss. </span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Results</strong> Fourteen clinical studies were selected from an initial search of 107 studies and the extraction of the analysis data were tabled according to complication output. Pocket probing depth were documented in eight studies, PPD around Zirconium implant abutments was 3.2 mm versus 3.4 mm for Titanium abutments. Five studies examined the recession index for Zirconium and Titanium implant abutments. The RI ranged from 0 to 0.4 at Titanium implant abutments and 0 to 0.3 at Zirconium implant abutments. Alveolar bone loss around Zirconia abutments was reported to differ from 0.2-1.48 mm and 0.3-1.43mm at Titanium abutments. </span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Conclusion</strong> The data reported in this systematic review did not give an evidence for the complication regarding all ceramic versus metallic implant abutment. However, it can be concluded that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute decision for the choice of ceramic or metallic as implant abutment material in relation to alveolar bone response. The meta-analysis presented a statistically significant difference between abutment material with superiority for the all ceramic abutments over metallic abutment providing a favorable response of Marginal Bone Loss, but non-statistically significant regarding Pocket Probing Depth and Recession Index of soft tissue.</span></p> M. A. Mokhtar G. Elnagar M. Saleh M. M. Radwan ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-02 2018-03-02 10 1 23 30 10.23805/jo.2018.10.01.04