Recently, tissue-level implants with a convergent collar have been introduced. While different studies have investigated the outcomes of this implant design in the rehabilitation of single teeth, its use in full-arch rehabilitation has yet to be investigated. The present case report describes the clinical outcomes of a full-arch immediate loading rehabilitation using tissue-level implants, with and without using implant-abutment units, with 2 years of follow-up. A female patient with mandibular terminal dentition and a high level of bone resorption (distal areas with a few millimeters of residual bone in the vertical dimension and both distal and anterior areas with narrow crestal bone in the horizontal dimension) was seen at the C.I.R Dental School, Turin, Italy. The patient was seeking to be rehabilitated with fixed prosthodontics, and she was found eligible for an immediate loading implant full-arch rehabilitation. Four implants were inserted in the same appointment. The two anterior implants were inserted straight and connected directly to the prosthesis (no abutments); the two distal implants were tilted in order to avoid the alveolar nerve and connected to two 30° angulated abutments. Two years post-implant placement, all of the implants were successfully integrated, resulting in an implant survival rate of 100%. The peri-implant soft tissues were stable at all the implant sites. No differences were highlighted between those implants with and without abutments. Within the limitations of the present clinical report, implant full-arch rehabilitations with tissue-level implants both with and without implant-abutment units showed optimal outcomes after two years of follow-up. Further research is encouraged to confirm whether this implant design may be a valid alternative to traditional implants in this type of rehabilitation, with or without implant-abutment units.

The objective of the present retrospective multi-center study was to analyze the outcomes of bone-level (BL) implants and tissue-level (TL) implants in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitations. Patients who were previously rehabilitated with full-arch immediate-loading rehabilitations with either BL or TL implants were considered. Data regarding implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded, and the 1-year follow-up data were statistically analyzed between the two groups. In total, 38 patients were evaluated for a total implant number of 156 (n = 80 TL implants and n = 76 BL implants). An implant survival rate of 97.37% was recoded for the BL group while an implant survival rate of 100% was noted for the TL group. A total MBL of 1.324 ± 0.64 mm was recorded for BL implants, while a total MBL of 1.194 ± 0.30 mm was recorded for TL implants. A statistically significant difference was highlighted regarding MBL at the mesial aspect (p = 0.01552) of the implants, with BL implants presenting with higher MBL. Within the range of acceptable healthy values, a statistically significant difference was also highlighted regarding BOP (p < 0.00001), with TL implants presenting higher values. No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was recorded for any of the other variables analyzed. Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, both TL and BL implants seem to provide good clinical outcomes after a 12-month observational period when employed in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitation.

Background: The aim of the present multi-center split-mouth randomized control trial was to investigate the effect on peri-implant tissue of abutment with chromium nitride/ niobium nitride (CrN/NbN) coatings (superlattice) compared to traditional machined surface. Methods: Two adjacent posterior implants were inserted in 20 patients. A machined abutment was randomly screwed on either the mesial or distal implant, while a superlattice abutment was screwed on the other one. Implant survival rate, peri-implant probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding index (BI) were collected 6 months after surgery, while marginal bone loss (MBL) was evaluated at T0 and T6.; Results: Implant survival rate was 97.7%. A total MBL of 0.77 ± 0.50 mm was recorded for superlattice abutments, while a mean MBL of 0.79 ± 0.40 mm was recorded for the abutment with machined surface. A mean PPD of 1.3 ± 0.23 mm was recorded for the superlattice Group, and a mean PPD of 1.31 ± 0.3 was recorded for the machined surface Group. PI was of 0.55 ± 0.51 for superlattice Group and 0.57 ± 0.50 for machined Group, while BI was of 0.47 ± 0.49 for superlattice Group and of 0.46 ± 0.40 for the machined one. No statistically significant difference was highlighted between the two Groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: After a 6-month observational period, no statistically significant differences were highlighted between superlattice abutment and traditional machined abutment. Further in vitro studies as well as clinical research with longer follow-ups are required to better investigate the surface properties of the novel abutments’ superlattice coating and its effect on the oral tissues.

Objectives: The purpose of this clinical study is to compare implant full-arch intraoral scans taken immediately after implant placement with those obtained after tissue healing in patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed prostheses. Methods: Between September 2023 and March 2024, a total of 19 patients with compromised residual dentition (6 women; 13 men) were rehabilitated using 4-to-6 immediately loaded post-extraction implants. These implants supported fixed full-arch screw-retained prostheses either in the lower jaw (9 patients) or upper jaw (10 patients). Intraoral scans were taken immediately after implant placement (termed “immediate scan”). After a healing period of four months, the provisional prosthesis was removed, and a second intraoral scan was performed using the same scan bodies and scan pattern as the initial scan (termed “delayed scan”). The two scans were overlaid, and the discrepancies between them were measured. Results: The average discrepancy between the immediate and delayed scans was 0.1905 mm. Our statistical analysis revealed larger discrepancies for implants placed in the posterior areas, with the implant in site 1.6 (Implant 1) showing a discrepancy of 0.2326 mm, and the implant in site 2.6 (Implant 4) showing a discrepancy of 0.2124 mm (p = 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed when comparing patients treated in the upper and lower jaws. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study and based on this result, clinicians should be aware that an immediate post-surgical intraoral digital scan for implant-supported full-arch rehabilitations may result in a higher risk of imprecision. Furthermore, according to the results of the study, the accuracy of the digital impression on implant full-arch rehabilitations seems to be influenced by the clinician’s skills. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm our results.

Objectives: The study’s objective was to evaluate the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted surgical implant placement systems during practical training on fresh defrozen cephali. Methods: Three defrozen cephali with terminal dentition received a total of 26 implants (15 4.3 × 13 mm and 11 4.3 × 13 mm, Nobel Biocare Service AG (Zrich-Flughafen Switzerland)) following a standardized protocol: a digital scanning and planning protocol followed by dynamic navigation surgery (X-Guide, X-Nav Technologies, LLC, Lansdale, PA, USA). All surgical interventions were performed by two surgeons: a senior oral surgeon (OE) with more than 5 years of implant dentistry experience and a non-experienced surgeon (NE). Results: Different linear and angular measurements (i.e., deviation shoulder point; deviation tip point; depth deviation shoulder point; depth deviation tip point; B/L and M/D angular deviations) were calculated in duplicate to estimate the discrepancy of the virtual digital planning with respect to the real clinical scenario. The differences between the two operators were also explored. The results of the bivariate analysis detected clinical negligible differences between the operators, without any statistically significant differences for all investigated parameters (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The preliminary positive findings of this pilot study suggest that the investigated dynamic navigation system could be a viable and safe technique for implant surgery and may offer additional safety benefits to non-experienced operators, despite the required learning.

The interaction between antiresorptive medication and dental implant procedures remains a subject of concern complicating the decision-making process for clinicians. The aim of the study is to conduct a literature review on the relationship between dental implant placement and the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients receiving antiresorptive drugs. The systematic review relied on the PRISMA statement using the PICO tool. The literature search was performed using PubMed, EBSCOhost and Scopus for RCTs, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies. The choice of reference studies was made in a blind process with a 100% agreement rate. For all included studies, quality assessment was performed. The research led to the selection of 608 results. Only five studies were included in the review. Three of the included studies were judged as having a low risk of bias. Dental implants may not be linked to a higher risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients taking low-dose bone-modifying agents. The long-term survival of implants in osteoporotic patients taking oral antiresorptive medication was similar to that in a healthy population and significantly higher than in untreated controls.