Juan Santos Marino

Dr. Juan Santos Marino


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
28 October 2021 in Materials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JMJuan Santos Marino
Juan Santos Marino
JBJorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann
Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann
IGIgnacio García-Gil
Ignacio García-Gil
NRNatalia Martinez Rodriguez
Natalia Martinez Rodriguez
Javier FloresJavier Flores
Javier Flores
JGJosé María Martínez González
José María Martínez González
Background and objectives: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival and success rates of dental implants with a double acid-etched surface treatment with evaluation times up to 10 years post-loading. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at a hospital oral surgery and implantology unit. It included 111 dental implants with a double acid-etched surface. Three groups were created: Group 1 (1–3 years loading), Group 2 (3–5 years loading), and Group 3 (over 5 years loading). Probing depth, resonance frequency analysis (ISQ value), and marginal bone loss were evaluated. Results: The data obtained underwent statistical analysis. Overall, 78 patients were included in the study, who received, in total, 111 dental implants, all replacing single teeth. Mean probing depth was 3.03 mm and mean ISQ was 65.54. Regarding marginal bone loss, in Group 1, 67.6% of implants did not undergo any thread loss, in Group 2, 48.3%, and in Group 3, 59.6%; 59.10% of all implants did not present thread loss with a mean bone loss of 0.552 mm. The implant survival rate was 99.1%, and the success rate was 96.37%. Conclusions: Implants with a double acid-etched surface showed excellent success rates in terms of marginal bone loss, ISQ, and probing depth after up to 10 years of loading, making them a clinically predictable treatment option. Future studies are needed to compare this implant surface with other types in different restorative situations.

21 January 2020 in Medicina
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Javier FloresJavier Flores
Javier Flores
Nansi López-ValverdeNansi López-Valverde
Nansi López-Valverde
AAArcadio García de Castro Andews
Arcadio García de Castro Andews
JMJuan Santos Marino
Juan Santos Marino
JRJuan M. Ramírez
Juan M. Ramírez
LALeticia Alejandra Blanco Antona
Leticia Alejandra Blanco Antona
Background and Objectives: Maxillary bone defects related to post-extraction alveolar ridge resorption are usual. These defects may lead to failure in further surgical implant phases given the lack of bone volume to perform the dental implant. The objective of this clinical assay was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an experimental synthetic bone substitute in the preservation of post-extraction maxillary alveoli. Materials and Methods: 33 voluntary patients who had at least one maxillary premolar tooth that was a candidate for exodontia (n = 39) and subsequent implant rehabilitation participated. The regenerated alveoli were monitored by means of periodic clinical examinations (days 9 ± 1, 21 ± 4, 42 ± 6, and 84 ± 6), measuring the height and width of the alveolar crest (days 0 and 180 ± 5), measurement of radiodensity using tomographic techniques (days 0–5 and 175 ± 5), and histological examination of biopsies collected at 180 ± 5 days. Results: No significant differences were observed during the entire follow-up period between the two groups with respect to the safety variables studied. A variation in width of −0.9 ± 1.3 mm and −0.6 ± 1.5 mm, and a variation in height of −0.1 ± 0.9 mm and −0.3 ± 0.7 mm was observed for experimental material Sil-Oss® and Bio-Oss®, respectively. The radiodensity of the alveoli regenerated with the experimental material was significantly lower than that corresponding to Bio-Oss®. However, the histological study showed greater osteoid matrix and replacement of the material with newformed bone in the implanted beds with the experimental material. Conclusions: Both materials can be used safely and proved equally effective in maintaining alveolar flange dimensions, they are also histologically biocompatible, bioactive and osteoconductive. The experimental material showed the advantage of being resorbable and replaced with newformed bone, in addition to promoting bone regeneration.