Background: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed by dentists performing dental implant surgery to avoid premature implant failure and postoperative infections. The scientific literature suggests that a single preoperative dose suffices to reduce the risk of early dental implant failure in healthy patients.Material and Methods: A systematic review was made based on an electronic literature search in the PubMed-Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Open Gray databases. The review addressed the question: “which antibiotic prophylaxis regimens are being used in dental implant surgery in healthy patients according to survey-based studies?” The identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion phases were conducted according to the PRISMA statement by two independent reviewers. The following data were collected: country, number of surveyed dentists, number of dentists who responded (n), response rate, routine prescription of antibiotic prophylactic treatment (yes, no, or conditioned prescription), prescription regimen (preoperative, perioperative or postoperative) and antibiotic choice (first and second choice). Cohen’s kappa coefficient (k) evaluated the level of agreement between the two reviewers. The analysis of risk of bias was performed follow the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for observational studies. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate total target sample, sample size and total mean.Results: A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 12 were included in the analysis. Two thousand and seventy-seven dentists from nine different countries on three continents were surveyed. The median response rate was low and disparate between studies. About three-quarters of the surveyed dentists claimed to routinely prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery. The prescription regimen was perioperative, postoperative and preoperative, in decreasing order of frequency. The most frequent first choice drug was amoxicillin, with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as second choice.Conclusions: A majority of dentists from different countries do not prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery following the available scientific evidence and could be overprescribing. Efforts are needed by dental educators and professionals to reduce the gap between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery as supported by the scientific evidence and what is being done by clinicians in actual practice.

Objective: To analyze the influence of 3‐mm high abutments with different shapes (cylindrical abutment vs. wide abutment) on marginal bone‐level changes (bone loss and bone remodeling). The influence of abutment shape on implant success, probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) was studied as secondary objectives.Materials and Methods: Patients with a partially edentulous area requiring fixed dental prostheses by two implants in the posterior mandible or maxilla were included. The implants were 1 mm subcrestally placed, and osseointegration healing was submerged. Three‐mm high abutments with two different shapes were randomly placed in second‐stage surgery: cylindrical abutments (cylindrical group) and wide abutments (wide group). Marginal bone‐level changes were measured using parallelized periapical radiographs at abutment placement, at definitive prosthesis placement, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after loading. PPD and BoP were likewise measured at the control visits.Results: Sixty‐four dental implants in 25 patients were included. Statistically significant differences were found in bone‐level changes. The cylindrical group exhibited less mean marginal bone remodeling (MBR) and marginal bone loss (MBL) than the wide group (p < .05). Moreover, the cylindrical group showed significantly less BoP (p < .05).Conclusion: Abutment shape had a significant influence upon marginal bone‐level changes during the first 12 months. Cylindrical abutments caused less MBR and MBL than wide abutments. More clinical studies involving longer follow‐ups and analyzing other abutment modifications are needed to improve our understanding of how abutments can affect peri‐implant tissue stability.

Purpose: To present a case series of zygomatic implants combined with bone regeneration and soft tissue enhancement techniques to reduce the risk of biological delayed complications such as maxillary sinusitis and soft tissue recession. Materials and methods: Zygomatic implants placed simultaneously with different bone regeneration techniques (buccal, palatal and buccal-palatal bone regeneration) and soft tissue enhancement techniques (pediculate and free connective tissue graft) were followed for at least 12 months. The following information was collected: patient age and sex, number of zygomatic implants, zygomatic implant success rate, zygomatic implant position according to classification of the Zygomatic Anatomy Guide Approach (ZAGA), sinus membrane perforation, type and outcome of the bone regeneration or the soft tissue enhancement technique, bone gain (width and length along the zygomatic implant) and keratinized buccal mucosa width, duration of follow-up, loading protocol (immediate or delayed) and biological complications (maxillary sinusitis and soft tissue recession). Results: Thirty-one zygomatic implants placed in 19 patients were included. All implants were successful and none of the implants presented biological complications. The bone regeneration technique was successful in 30 of 31 cases with a mean palatal bone width of 3 mm, buccal bone width of 2.65 mm, palatal bone length of 6.5 mm and buccal bone length of 8.3 mm. The success rate of soft tissue enhancement was 100% and it established at least 2 mm of keratinized buccal mucosa width in all implants. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, bone regeneration and soft tissue enhancement techniques were useful to establish more favorable conditions of the peri-implant tissues around zygomatic implants. This could prevent biological complications such as maxillary sinusitis and soft tissue recessions. Prospective and randomized controlled clinical trials with longer follow-up periods are advisable.

Objective: An in vitro study was made to compare mean thermal variation according to the material, design and wear of the surgical drills used during dental implant site preparation. Material and methods: Three study groups (stainless steel drills with straight blades; diamond-like carbon-coated drills with straight blades; and diamond-like carbon-coated drills with twisted blades) were tested to compare material, design and wear of the surgical drill in terms of overall mean values (complete sequence of drills) and specific mean values (each drill separately). The groups comprised four drills: initial, pilot, progressive and final drill. Implant site configuration was performed through an intermittent and gradual drilling technique without irrigation at 800 rpm in standardized synthetic blocks. Maximum axial loading of two kilograms was controlled by an automatic press. Each surgical drill was submitted to 50 drillings and was sterilized every five uses. A thermographic camera analyzed the mean thermal changes. The software-controlled automatic press kept systematic drilling, axial loading and operational speed constant without any human intervention. Student’s t-test, ANOVA and multiple linear regression models were performed. The level of significance was 5% (p = 0.05). Results: The overall mean comparison between the stainless steel and diamond-like carbon-coated materials showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05), though specific mean comparison showed statistically significant differences between the drills of the different groups (p < 0.05). The twisted blades exhibited less overall and specific mean thermal variation than straight blades for the progressive and final drills (p < 0.01). In addition, the initial and pilot drills showed a greater mean thermal change than the progressive and final drills. The mean thermal variation was seen to increase during the 50 drillings. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the drill material did not significantly influence the overall mean thermal variation except for the pilot drill. The drill design affected overall and specific mean thermal variation since the twisted blades heated less than the straight blades. The initial and pilot drills increased the specific mean thermal variation with respect to the progressive and final drills. In addition, all drills in each group produced a gradual increase in mean temperature during the 50 drillings.

Background: This study aimed to analyze the influence of concave and cylindrical abutments on peri‐implant soft tissue. Dimensions, collagen fiber orientation, and immunohistochemical data were assessed.Methods: A multicenter, split‐mouth, double‐blind randomized clinical trial was conducted. Two groups were analyzed: cylindrical abutments and concave abutments. After a 12‐week healing period, peri‐implant soft tissue samples were collected, processed, and evaluated for dimensions, collagen fiber orientation, and immunohistochemical data. Inflammatory infiltration and vascularization were assessed, and the abutment surfaces were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 20.0 statistical package.Results: A total of 74 samples in 37 patients were evaluated. Histological evaluation of peri‐implant soft tissue dimensions revealed significant differences between concave and cylindrical abutments. Concave abutments exhibited greater total height (concave: 3.57 ± 0.28 – cylindrical: 2.95 ± 0.27) and barrier epithelium extension (concave: 2.46 ± 0.17 – cylindrical: 1.89 ± 0.21) (p < 0.05), while the supracrestal connective tissue extension (concave: 1.11 ± 0.17 – cylindrical: 1.03 ± 0.16) was slightly greater (p > 0.05). Collagen fiber orientation favored concave abutments (23.76 ± 5.86), with significantly more transverse/perpendicular fibers than for cylindrical abutments (15.68 ± 4.57). The immunohistochemical analysis evidenced greater inflammatory and vascular intensity in the lower portion for both abutments, though concave abutments showed lower overall intensity (concave: 1.05 ± 0.78 – cylindrical: 1.97 ± 0.68) (p < 0.05). The abutment surface analysis demonstrated a higher percentage of tissue remnants on concave abutments (42.47 ± 1.32; 45.12 ± 3.03) (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, concave abutments presented significantly greater peri‐implant tissue height, linked to an extended barrier epithelium, versus cylindrical abutments in thick tissue phenotype. This enhanced soft tissue sealing, favoring a greater percentage of transversely oriented collagen fibers. The concave design reduced chronic inflammatory exudation with T and B cells, thus minimizing the risk of chronic inflammation.Plain Language Summary: This study looked at how 2 different shapes of dental implant abutments (the parts that connect the implant to the crown), specifically concave and cylindrical, affect the soft tissue around the implants. We wanted to see how these shapes influenced the tissue's size, structure, and health. We conducted a clinical trial with 37 patients, comparing the 2 types of abutments in the same mouth over 12 weeks.Our findings showed that the concave abutments led to a taller and more extensive layer of protective tissue around the implant compared to the cylindrical ones. This protective tissue had more favorable collagen fiber orientation, which is important for the strength and health of the tissue. Additionally, the concave abutments resulted in less inflammation and better tissue integration.In conclusion, concave abutments may provide better support and health for the soft tissue around dental implants, reducing the risk of chronic inflammation and potentially leading to better long‐term outcomes for patients with dental implants