Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs). Methods: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes. Results: 16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature. Conclusions: The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.

Objectives: The present randomized clinical trial assesses the six-month outcomes following surgical regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: 24 patients with 24 implants suffering from peri-implantitis with any type of bone defect were randomly treated by EC or PEC. Bone defects were augmented with a mixture of natural bone mineral and autogenous bone and left for submerged healing. The distance from implant shoulder to bone was assessed at six defined points at baseline (T0) and after six months at uncovering surgery (T1) by periodontal probe and standardized x-rays. Results: One implant had to be removed at T1 because of reinfection and other obstacles. None of the other implants showed signs of inflammation. Bone gain was 2.71 ± 1.70 mm for EC and 2.81 ± 2.15 mm for PEC. No statistically significant difference between EC and PEC was detected. Significant clinical bone fill was observed for all 24 implants. Complete regeneration of bone was achieved in 12 implants. Defect morphology impacted the amount of regeneration. Conclusion: EC needs no further mechanical cleaning by powder spray. Complete re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis cases is possible.

Purpose: Bacterial biofilms are a major problem in the treatment of infected dental and orthopedic implants. The purpose of this study is to investigate the cleaning effect of an electrolytic approach (EC) compared to a powder-spray system (PSS) on titanium surfaces. Materials and Methods: The tested implants (different surfaces and alloys) were collated into six groups and treated ether with EC or PSS. After a mature biofilm was established, the implants were treated, immersed in a nutritional solution, and streaked on Columbia agar. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted after breeding and testing (EC), and control (PSS) groups were compared using a paired sample t-test. Results: No bacterial growth was observed in the EC groups. After thinning to 1:1,000,000, 258.1 ± 19.9 (group 2), 264.4 ± 36.5 (group 4), and 245.3 ± 40.7 (group 6) CFUs could be counted in the PSS groups. The difference between the electrolytic approach (test groups 1, 3, and 5) and PSS (control groups 2, 4, and 6) was statistically extremely significant (p-value < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶). Conclusion: Only EC inactivated the bacterial biofilm, and PSS left reproducible bacteria behind. Within the limits of this in vitro test, clinical relevance could be demonstrated.

Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implantitis (PI) and peri‐implant mucositis (PM) in a long‐term follow‐up with comparison among different PI and PM definitions, and to report on the incidence of PI.Materials and Methods: In a retrospective clinical study five different PI and PM definitions were applied onto a population with 274 implants 17 to 23 years postimplant placement. Recommendations by the Eighth European Workshop on Periodontology (EWOP) were used as base reference. Clinical and radiological measurements were considered. Risk factors were evaluated in a regression analysis.Results: After an average observation period of 18.9 years, 40.1% of the implants were diagnosed with PM and 15.0% with PI (Eighth EWOP). PI incidence reached 7.9% on implant level and 13.2% on patient level. Implants diagnosed with PI and progressive bone loss displayed exceptionally vertical bone defect configuration (BDC). Diabetes mellitus, smoking, regular maintenance, or a former periodontal infection did not show significant influence on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases. Patients with bruxism displayed significantly less PM and PI.Conclusions: Vertical BDC seems to correspond with active PI, wherefore we estimate such a defining factor of importance. Diagnosis of PM and evaluation of probing pocket depths might be only of descriptive interest as they could lead to false‐positive results.