(1) Background: The stability of implants plays a significant role in the success of osseointegration. The stability of the connection between the fixture and the abutment is one of the critical factors affecting osseointegration. When restoring multiple, non-parallel, and splinted implants, achieving a passive fit can be complicated and challenging. A new EZ post non-engaging abutment system of the BlueDiamond^® (BD) implant allows a wide connection angle while achieving a passive prosthesis fit. This study aimed to confirm the new abutment system’s clinical applicability by evaluating its biomechanical characteristics using finite element analysis (FEA). (2) Methods: The implant-supported fixed three-unit dental prostheses model was reproduced for two groups of AnyOne^® (AO) and BD implants using FEA. The loading conditions were a preload of 200 N in the first step and loads of 100 N (axial), 100 N (15°), or 30 N (45°) in the second step. (3) Results: The peak Von Mises stress (PVMS) value of the fixture in the BD group was more than twice that in the AO group. In contrast, the PVMS values of the abutment and abutment screws were lower in the BD group than in the AO group. The AO group revealed higher maximal principal stress (MPS) values than that of the BD group in the cortical bone, cancellous bone, and crown. The average stress of the outer surface of the abutment was lower in the AO group than in the BD group. The stress distribution for the inner surface of the fixture confirmed that the BD group displayed a lower stress distribution than the AO group under axial and 15° loads; however, the average stress was 1.5 times higher at the 45° load. The stress values of the entire surface where the cortical and cancellous bone were in contact with the fixture were measured. The AO group showed a higher stress value than the BD group in both cortical and cancellous bone. (4) Conclusions: In the AO group, the PVMS value of the fixture and the stress distribution at the contact surface between the fixture and the abutment were lower than those of the BD group, suggesting that the stability of the fixture would be high. However, due to the high stress in the fastening area of the abutment and abutment screw, the risk of abutment fracture in the AO group is higher than that of the BD group. Therefore, the new EZ post non-engaging abutment of the BD implant can be used without any problems in clinics, similar to the non-engaging abutment of the AO implant, which has been widely used in clinical practice.

Background: Implant surface topography is a key element in achieving osseointegration. Nanostructured surfaces have shown promising results in accelerating and improving bone healing around dental implants. The main objective of the present clinical and histological study is to compare, at 4 and 6 weeks, (w) bone-to-implant contact in implants having either machined surface (MAC), sandblasted, large grit, acid-etched implant surface (SLA) medium roughness surface or a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface (XPEED^®). Methods: 35 mini-implants of 3.5 × 8.5 mm with three different surface treatments (XPEED^® (n = 16)—SLA (n = 13)—MAC (n = 6), were placed in the posterior maxilla of 11 patients (6 females and 5 males) then, retrieved at either 4 or 6w in a randomized split-mouth study design. Results: The BIC rates measured at 4w and 6w respectively, were: 16.8% (±5.0) and 29.0% (±3.1) for MAC surface; 18.5% (±2.3) and 33.7% (±3.3) for SLA surface; 22.4% (±1.3) and 38.6% (±3.2) for XPEED^® surface. In all types of investigated surfaces, the time factor appeared to significantly increase the bone to implant contact (BIC) rate (p < 0.05). XPEED^® surface showed significantly higher BIC values when compared to both SLA and MAC values at 4w (p < 0.05). Also, at 6w, both roughened surfaces (SLA and XPEED^®) showed significantly higher values (p < 0.05) than turned surface (MAC). Conclusions: Nanostructured Calcium titanate coating is able to enhance bone deposition around implants at early healing stages.

Background: Implant surface topography is a key element in achieving osseointegration. Nanostructured surfaces have shown promising results in accelerating and improving bone healing around dental implants. The main objective of the present clinical and histological study is to compare, at 4 and 6 weeks, (w) bone-to-implant contact in implants having either machined surface (MAC), SLA medium roughness surface or a Nanostructured Calcium-Incorporated sur-face (XPEED®). Methods: 35 mini-implants with 3 different surface treatments (XPEED® (n=16) – SLA (n=13) – Machined (n=6), were placed in the posterior maxilla of 11 patients then, retrieved at either 4 or 6w in a randomized split-mouth study design. Results: The BIC rate measured at 4 and 6w respectively, was: 16.8 % (±5.0) and 29.0 % (±3.1) for MAC surface; 18.5 % (±2.3) and 33.7 % (±3.3) for SLA surface; 22.4 % (±1.3) and 38.6 % (±3.2) for XPEED® surface. In all types of in-vestigated surfaces, the time factor appeared to significantly increase the BIC rate (p < .05). XPEED® surface showed a significantly higher values when compared to both SLA and MAC values at 4w (p < .05). Also, at 6w, both roughened surfaces (SLA and XPEED® ) showed signifi-cantly higher values (p < .05) than turned surface (MAC). Conclusion: Nanostructured Calcium titanate coating is able to enhance bone deposition around implants at early healing stages.