Читать книгу Fundamentals of Implant Dentistry - John III Beumer - Страница 11
ОглавлениеHistory and Biologic Foundations
John Beumer III | Robert F. Faulkner | Kumar C. Shah | Benjamin M. Wu
Introduction and Historical Perspectives
Osseointegration has had a greater impact on the practice of dentistry than any technology introduced during the last 60 years. Since the introduction of osseointegrated dental implants more than 30 years ago, significant advances have been achieved in implant surface bioreactivity, methods used in diagnosis and treatment planning—particularly 3D imaging, computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), additive manufacturing, and surface engineering—enhancement of bone and soft tissues of potential implant sites, and prosthodontic approaches and techniques. A degree of predictability with implants has been achieved that is truly remarkable.
The concept of osseointegrated implants was first introduced by Brånemark.1 These implants were made of titanium, and when placed in the jaws, bone was deposited on their surfaces, firmly anchoring the implants in the surrounding bone1–3 (Fig 1-1). This phenomenon was discovered quite by accident. In a series of experiments designed to document bone healing in vivo, Brånemark used an optical chamber made of titanium placed in a rabbit tibia that was connected to a microscope. When he attempted to remove the chamber from its bone site, he noticed that the bone adhered to the titanium chamber with great tenacity. He recognized the importance of this discovery, and during the next several years, he experimented with various sizes and shapes of dental implants, testing more than fifty designs. He and his colleagues finally settled on a simple screw shape with a hex at the top.
Fig 1-1 The gap between the wall of the osteotomy and the surface of the implant is filled with bone by means of contact (arrows) and distance osteogenesis. (Reprinted from Moy et al3 with permission.)
Most of the previous implant systems were made of cobalt-chrome alloys and were subject to corrosion and release of metallic ions into the adjacent tissues. The presence of these ions in sufficient concentrations is thought to provoke acute and chronic inflammatory responses. When combined with insufficient primary fixation and the lack of stability during healing and function, fibrous encapsulation of the offending material is a common sequela (Fig 1-2a). Subsequently, epithelial migration along the interface between the implant and the fibrous capsule led to development of extended peri-implant pockets, and the chronic infections resulting from these pockets led to exposure of the implant framework and its eventual loss (Fig 1-2b). In general, these implant systems survived for 5 to 7 years before the infections prompted their removal. The infections were particularly destructive of bone and soft tissue in the maxilla (Fig 1-3).
Fig 1-2 (a) Subperiosteal cobalt-chrome implants are enveloped by fibrous connective tissue slings. (Courtesy of Dr R. James.) (b) Epithelial migration led to the formation of extended peri- implant pockets, which in turn developed into chronic infections. The infections led to exposure of the implant struts and eventually loss of the implant.
Fig 1-3 Substantial portions of the hard palate were lost secondary to infections associated with a subperiosteal implant. (Courtesy of Dr J. Jayanetti.)
Titanium, however, spontaneously forms a coating of titanium dioxide (TiO2), which is stable and biologically inert and promotes the deposition of a mineralized bone matrix on its surface. In addition, it is easily machined into precision geometries, and the oxide passivation layer provides corrosion resistance under most oral conditions. Following placement of the implant, a blood clot forms between the surface of the implant and the walls of the osteotomy site.4 Plasma proteins are attracted to the area, accompanied by platelet activation and the release of cytokines and growth factors.5–7 Some of these signaling molecules induce angiogenesis, and others orchestrate the cascade of wound healing response, which includes the recruitment of local stem cells. These and other repair cells migrate via the fibrin scaffold within the osteotomy site toward the implant surface. The stem cells differentiate into osteoblasts and begin to deposit bone on the surface of the implant and the walls of the osteotomy site, eventually leading to anchorage of the implant in bone (the result of contact and distance osteogenesis8; see Fig 1-1). The initial events of this process take anywhere from 8 weeks to 4 months depending on the biologic microenvironment and the osteoconductivity (the recruitment of osteogenic cells and their migration to the surface of the implant) of the implant surface.
The original dental implants developed by Professor Brånemark and his colleagues were prepared with a machined surface (Fig 1-4). These machined-surface implants were predictable in bone sites of favorable quantity and quality, such as the mandibular symphysis region, but were problematic when restoring posterior quadrants in partially edentulous patients. Since then, numerous surface treatments (eg, sandblasting, acid etching, titanium grit blasting, electrolytic processes) designed to change the microtopography of the implant surface have evolved that have significantly improved the osteoconductivity of titanium implants, making these implants highly predictable in less favorable sites, such as when restoring the posterior quadrant of the maxilla in partially edentulous patients (see chapter 11).
Fig 1-4 (a) The original Brånemark machined-surface implant. (b and c) Machined-surface topography.
Prerequisites for Achieving Osseointegration
Uncontaminated implant surfaces
The osteoconductivity of implant surfaces is impaired if they become contaminated with organic molecules; if this occurs, the surface charge is changed from positive to negative, the surface becomes less wettable, and upon implant placement, adsorption of plasma proteins is inhibited. However, implant surfaces can be decontaminated by exposure to ultraviolet light.9,10 Decontaminating implant surfaces with ultraviolet light (photofunctionalization; see chapter 2) enhances adsorption of plasma proteins initially after implant placement and promotes more rapid differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells into osteoblasts once they reach the surface of the implant.
Creation of congruent, nontraumatized implant sites
Careful preparation of the implant site is important to obtaining osseointegration of a titanium implant in bone on a consistent basis (Fig 1-5). In an ideal situation, the gaps between the wall of the osteotomy and the implant are small, the amount of damaged bone created during surgical preparation of the bone site is minimal, and the implant remains immobilized during the period of bone repair. Under these circumstances, the implant becomes osseointegrated a very high percentage of the time (95% or greater with the modern microrough implant surfaces). During surgical preparation of the site, excessive bone temperatures (ie, above 47ºC) should be avoided because they create a zone of necrotic bone in the wall of the osteotomy site, which leads to impaired healing and an increased likelihood of a connective tissue interface forming between the implant and the bone (see Fig 1-5).
Fig 1-5 (a) Semiguided surgical drill guide. Note the bushings (drill sleeves) incorporated within the drill guide. (b) Implants are being placed. (c) Implants in position.
A similar outcome is seen if excessive torque is employed to improve initial implant stability or if osteotomes are used to compress the bone adjacent to the osteotomy site in order to achieve a similar outcome (so-called “osteodensification”). Excessive compression of the bone adjacent the osteotomy site increases its density but does not improve initial implant anchorage. This practice results in cell death and increases the width of the zone of necrotic bone adjacent to the osteotomy site. Within 1 day of implant placement, the condensed bone interface exhibits microfractures and osteoclast activity. The subsequent resorption of this zone of necrotic bone around the circumference of the implant increases the dip in implant anchorage seen 7 to 10 days following initial implant placement and if the implant is loaded immediately, theoretically increases the likelihood of implant failure.11,12 Finite element modeling, mechanical testing, and immunohistochemical data collected at various time intervals during the osseointegration period have shown that osteodensification results in excessive interfacial strains, marginal bone resorption, and no improvement in implant stability.12
Primary implant stability
Osseointegration is obtained more consistently when initial primary stability of the implant is achieved in the surrounding bone. This is particularly important when one-stage surgical procedures are employed, and is obviously necessary if the implant is to be immediately placed into function (ie, immediate loading or immediate provisionalization). In attempting to establish initial primary stability, often the implant site is underprepared when the bone is porous or soft. If the implant is not stable in its prepared osteotomy site, many clinicians prefer to replace it with an implant of a slightly larger diameter. This was particularly necessary when machined-surface implants were routinely employed. Today, implant surfaces are considerably more bioreactive, and unstable implants (so-called “spinners”) have a reasonable chance of achieving osseointegration when the wound is closed primarily and as long as the clot remains undisturbed during the initial period of healing.
Appropriate initial implant stability is especially essential when considering immediate loading or immediate provisionalization (ie, inserting a prosthesis at the time of implant placement). Recently, an increasing number of implant companies are introducing thread designs with aggressive pitch and drill sequences that result in bone compression. Some of these systems require high insertion torque. However, as mentioned previously, excessive insertion torque appears to actually delay healing and may compromise the quality of implant bone anchorage ultimately achieved.11,12 These studies have generated considerable debate because previously, many clinicians maintained that high torque values were beneficial and resulted in improved initial implant stability, which in turn led to better outcomes when implants were immediately loaded or immediately provisionalized with a prosthesis.13,14 According to Cha et al11 and Wang et al,12 excessive compression of trabecular bone associated with higher torque levels leads to a relatively thick layer of damaged necrotic bone abutting the surface of the implant, and this layer must be resorbed before contact osteogenesis can begin. This is not surprising because it known that high compressive forces shut off angiogenesis and local microvascular blood flow, and the resultant biochemical cascades of cytokines and cellular reprograming leads to bone resorption. In fact, compressive stress on the leading edge of orthodontic tooth force vector is responsible for bone remodeling that is necessary for successful orthodontic movement. The data in this study is also consistent with the findings of many clinicians, who have recorded significant decreases in implant stability levels 7 to 10 days following implant placement.15 The levels rebound, but the patient is instructed to avoid mastication for the first 6 weeks following implant placement, and restorative dentists are advised to avoid manipulations of the prosthesis for at least 12 weeks.16
Implant stability during the healing phase
It was thought that micromovement of the implant could disturb the tissue and vascular structures necessary for initial bone healing.17 Furthermore, excessive micromovement of the implant during healing was thought to induce the detachment of the fibrin clot from the implant surface. Actually, it is well known that an optimal amount of strain is beneficial and necessary for most cellular function, from neurons to cardiac cells to osteoblasts and many more. Each cell type is known to respond to stress state (compression, tension, shear) and strain magnitude. The Frost model18,19 describes a range of optimal microstrain that promotes osteoblast bone remodeling and homeostasis. When insufficient microstrain exists, the bone cells can actually stop producing bone, leading to an osteoblast/osteoclast imbalance. Furthermore, a slight increase above the optimal strain range can promote bone deposition. However, excessive microstrain can lead to necrosis and resorption. The healing processes are highly dependent on the microstrain status. Excessive micromovement tends to produce a connective tissue–implant interface (fibro-osseointegration), while appropriate microstrain can promote a healthy bone-implant interface. These phenomena have clinical significance. For example, immediate loading of dental implants provides a unique challenge. Implants placed into function immediately must be sufficiently stable so as to reduce micromovement to physiologic levels during healing. Otherwise, the implant may fail to osseointegrate.
Role of implant surfaces on implant stability
Any given implant geometry surfaces prepared with a microrough topography are considerably more osteoconductive compared with the original machined-surface implants20,21 (see Fig 1-1). There are several reasons why these surfaces are such an improvement over the original machined surfaces. First, the modern implant surfaces with microrough surface topographies retain the fibrin blood clot more effectively than implants with machined surfaces.22 As a result, the initial critical events (ie, plasma protein adsorption, clot formation, angiogenesis, local stem cell and repair cell migration and attachment, cell differentiation) associated with osseointegration are facilitated.
In addition, local stem cells differentiate more rapidly into functioning osteoblasts following attachment to the microrough surfaces as compared with machined surfaces. These surfaces also upregulate and accelerate the expression of genes of the differentiating osteoblasts associated with the osseo- integration process.23 This leads to a different combination of collagenous and noncollagenous proteins making up the bone deposited on the microrough surfaces as compared with the bone deposited on machined-surface topographies. As a result, bone that matures on implant surfaces with microrough surface topography is harder and stiffer than bone deposited on machined surfaces.24,25
An active and efficient remodeling apparatus is key to maintaining osseointegration during functional loading of the implants.26 Osseointegration of the implant with bone continues to occur up to 1 year following delivery of either a provisional or definitive prosthesis.27 Following initial healing and functional loading within physiologic limits, progressive osteogenesis continues to where the bone-implant contact area approaches almost 90% in favorable sites (Fig 1-6).
Fig 1-6 Following initial healing and when loading forces are favorable, the bone contact area on the surface of the implant continues to increase. Note the bone density of the peri- implant bone 7 years following delivery.
The Implant–Soft Tissue Interface
The peri-implant mucosa is similar to the mucosa circumscribing natural teeth. It is composed of nonkeratinizing epithelium in the sulcus, junctional epithelium, and a supracrestal zone of connective tissue. The connective tissue layer contains a dense zone of circumferential collagen fibers intermingled with fibers extending outward from the alveolar crest. These fibers run parallel to the long axis of the implant. The zone of connective tissue adjacent to the implant is relatively avascular and acelluar and similar to scar tissue histologically. The soft tissue barrier (interface) assumes a minimal dimension during the healing process. If this dimension is less than 2 to 3 mm, bone resorption occurs in order to establish an appropriate biologic dimension of the peri-implant soft tissue barrier.28
The titanium–soft tissue interface appears to be similar to but not exactly the same as that seen between gingiva and natural dentition (Fig 1-7). The epithelial-implant interface is based on the hemidesmosome basal lamina system, similar to that seen between gingiva and teeth. When implants emerge through attached keratinized mucosa, collagen fibers circumferentially configured around the neck of the implant are interwoven with collagen fibers running from the crest of the alveolus and the periosteum to the free gingiva and hold the epithelium in close proximity to the surface of the implant. The epithelial cells in the sulcus epithelium secrete a sticky substance (a protein network of glycoproteins) onto the surface of the implants, enabling the epithelial cells to adhere to the implant surface via hemidesmosomes. The epithelial cuffs that form as a result of the basal lamina hemidesmosomal system and the zone of connective tissue just apical to it effectively seal the bone from oral bacteria.29 However, what differentiates the soft tissues around implants from the gingival tissues around natural teeth is the absence of gingival fibers inserting into a cementumlike tissue. Hence, the soft tissues around implants are more easily detached from the surfaces of the implant than are the soft tissues surrounding natural teeth. This difference is clinically significant for a number of reasons, including the manner in which these tissues respond to the oral microflora,29 and especially when cement systems are used for retention of implant prostheses because of the risk of embedding cement subgingivally during cementation of the prosthesis30 thereby increasing the risk of peri-implantitis31 (Fig 1-8).
Fig 1-7 Soft tissue–implant interface.
Fig 1-8 Peri-implantitis triggered by excess cement beneath the peri-implant soft tissues. The bone loss has compromised the periodontal support of the adjacent teeth. (Reprinted from Moy et al3 with permission.)
The phenomenon of biologic width applies not only to the natural dentition but also to the soft tissues around implants. Biologic width is defined as the combined length of the supracrestal connective tissue and the zone of junctional epithelium associated with the epithelial attachment32 (Fig 1-9). This dimension averages approximately 3 mm around implants28 and is slightly greater than that associated with the natural dentition. In general, the width of the epithelial component is greater and demonstrates more variability than the width of the connective tissue zone. This phenomenon has particular impact in the esthetic zone because, as with the natural dentition, the level and contours of the underlying bone primarily determine the contours and level of the overlying soft tissues. The zonal epithelium can be located on either the implant fixture or the abutment, depending whether the implant platform is supracrestal, crestal, or subcrestal. The dimension of the biologic width in relation to the nature and topography of the implant surface has been the subject of much debate in recent years. However, there is no clear consensus on whether differences in biologic width exist with respect to the varieties of surface topographies and surface treatments currently in use.33 Also, the evidence appears to indicate that there are no significant differences in biologic width achieved between one-stage and two-stage surgical procedures.
Fig 1-9 Biologic width is defined as the combined length of the supracrestal connective tissue and the zone of junctional epithelium associated with the epithelial attachment. (Redrawn from Spear32 with permission.)
However, it appears that the nature of the microgap between the abutment and the implant and its position in relation to the bone crest increases the biologic width. The deeper the implant-abutment connection in relation to the gingival crest, the greater the biologic width will be, particularly the epithelial component. It is unclear whether multiple abutment manipulations induce an apical migration of the connective tissue–epithelial attachment zone, resulting in marginal bone loss.34,35 The lack of stability of the abutment-implant connection may also trigger an apical migration of the connective tissue–epithelial attachment zone accompanied by marginal bone loss around the neck of the implant, presumably as a result of increased levels of bacterial colonization. The long-term clinical consequences of these findings with respect to implant survival have yet to be determined.
In the esthetic zone, techniques have evolved that idealize the soft tissue contours around the implant prostheses. Provisional restorations are designed to support the soft tissues and develop ideal contours, and these contours can be recorded using customized impression techniques (Fig 1-10). In addition, surgical procedures have been developed that can be used to enhance bone and soft tissue contours.
Fig 1-10 (a and b) A provisional implant crown was fabricated and altered as necessary to refine the peri-implant soft tissue contours. (c) A customized impression coping was used to make the definitive impression. (d) The definitive restoration.
Recent Innovations, Clinical Trends, and Impact
Several innovations have been introduced into clinical practice in recent years. The number of patients now considered suitable candidates for implant treatment has expanded dramatically because of the bioreactivity of modern implant surfaces and of our ability to enhance the bone and soft tissues of the potential implant sites. In addition, improved site evaluation with CBCT scans and the accompanying software, tilted implants, guided implant surgery, improved prosthodontic designs, the introduction of new materials, and a better understanding of the limitations of the prosthodontic materials previously used in conventional dentistry when used for implant prostheses have improved implant success rates and prosthesis predictability.
Impact of 3D imaging and CAD/CAM on diagnosis, treatment planning, surgical planning, surgical placement, and prosthesis fabrication
Initially, the workup of potential implant patients was surgically driven; that is, the suitability of a patient was determined primarily by the 3D volume and quality of the bone sites. Today, the development and the improving sophistication of CBCT scans and CAD/CAM programs permits the workup to be driven by the needs of the prosthetic design. With these tools, clinicians are able to identify vital structures such as the inferior alveolar nerve, determine the 3D nature of the potential implant bone sites, predetermine implant position and angulation with great precision, and fabricate surgical stents and surgical drill guides that allow placement of implants into their intended positions via semiguided or fully guided surgery (Fig 1-11). In addition, CAD/CAM systems allow for the design and manufacture of customized implant connecting bars, custom abutments, provisional restorations, and now, definitive restorations with great precision (see Fig 1-11). All those who practice implant dentistry should become intimately familiar with these technologies.
Fig 1-11 A computer-guided approach enables the implant team to (a) design a provisional prosthesis and determine the positions of the implants, (b) design and manufacture abutments and fabricate a provisional prosthesis, and (c) fabricate the surgical template prior to implant surgery. (d) The customized abutments. (e) The provisional prosthesis. (f) The definitive prosthesis. (Courtesy of Dr A. Pozzi.)
Impact of changes in the design of the implant body and the implant platform (ie, interface between abutment and implant fixture)
Several new implant designs have been introduced, and the impact of these designs will be addressed in this new edition. For example, recently there has been increased use of self- tapping implant designs (Fig 1-12). These are used primarily in poor-quality bone sites (poor density), such as the posterior maxilla. Another innovation is the development of tapered implants designed specifically for immediate loading. With these two design changes, during insertion of the implant, the trabecular bone of the implant site is compressed around the implant, leading to improving primary stability of the implant. As a result, in select patients the improved initial anchorage allows for immediate loading or immediate provisionalization.
Fig 1-12 A variety of implant shapes, thread patterns, and implant platforms are available.
Manufacturers continue to introduce new implant platform designs. However, the clinical impact of these design changes is rarely addressed. As a result, restorative dentists must increase their inventories of prosthetic components. A good example is the continuing debate regarding the use of external hex versus internal locking systems (Fig 1-13). The nature of the implant-abutment connection may be clinically significant when restoring single-tooth defects but probably not when restoring multiple-tooth defects. Single implants, especially in the posterior regions, are subjected to significant occlusal forces. The lateral component of these forces may be sufficient to widen the microgaps between the abutment and the implant during function in the external hex designs. Some have speculated that this may be detrimental to the long-term survivability of the implant and the restoration. However, clinical reports do not support this hypothesis.36,37 These issues are probably not clinically significant when multiple implants are splinted together when restoring posterior quadrants or fabricating full-arch restorations where multiple implants are splinted together across the arch.36
Fig 1-13 Implant platform designs. (a) Internal interlocking system. (b) External hex system.
Likewise, the impact of platform reduction is still far from settled. Some authors have hypothesized38 that using designs where the diameter of the abutment is less than that of the head of the implant fixture horizontalizes the epithelial attachment39 and may also redirect the stresses away from the crestal bone–implant interface,40 and as a result of these phenomena, such designs will reduce the rate of crestal bone loss (Fig 1-14). The clinical evidence for this claim is not convincing,41 and randomized clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a benefit of platform reduction with respect to maintenance of crestal bone levels.42
Fig 1-14 Platform reduction. The diameter of the abutment as it emerges from the implant is less than the diameter of the neck of the implant.
Impact of surgical innovations
Widening the alveolar ridge with bone grafts has become very predictable, and several new techniques have been introduced (Fig 1-15). The need to maximize the zone of keratinized tissue and retain or restore the interdental papilla has led to the development of many new grafting techniques and flap designs (see Figs 1-15b and 1-15c), particularly in the esthetic zone.43 Furthermore, a one-stage technique can be used in select patients, as opposed to burying the implants beneath the mucosa during the healing period. Recent reports have also suggested that fully guided, flapless implant placement in select patients reduces the incidence of surgery-related bacteremia and may be beneficial for patients with medical risk factors that require prophylactic antibiotic coverage44 (Fig 1-16). Many of these techniques are highlighted throughout the book, including in a newly added chapter 19 that discusses basic surgical techniques.
Fig 1-15 (a) Grafting defects lacking width has been predictable, and a number of different techniques have evolved (see Moy et al3). (b and c) The zone of attached keratinized mucosa around the implants can also be increased predictably. (d) Definitive prosthesis. (Courtesy of Dr A. Pozzi.)
Fig 1-16 Fully guided implant surgery enables flapless surgery in select patients with ample bone and keratinized attached tissue volume. (a) The tooth-borne fully guided surgical template in position. (b) A circular patch of tissue was removed from the implant site with a tissue punch before the osteotomy site was prepared. (c) The osteotomy site is prepared. (d) The implant is inserted. (e) A healing abutment has been secured to the implant.
Implant manufacturers are increasingly introducing shorter and narrower-diameter implants with the promise of reducing the need for bone grafting. Despite short-term data, there is a lack of clinical evidence that these implants will enjoy the same long-term success as traditional-sized implants in properly grafted sites.
Impact of tilted implants
The use of tilted implants has emerged as a viable alternative to sinus augmentation,45–48 especially in edentulous patients (Fig 1-17). This improves the biomechanical configuration in edentulous patients (see chapters 7 and 8) and recently has also been employed to restore extended edentulous areas in the posterior maxilla of partially edentulous patients (Fig 1-18). When this concept was first introduced, the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus was exposed in order to precisely postion and angle the implant. However, with the recent improvement in the precision of fully guided implant surgery, the use of tilted implants has become a less invasive and more attractive alternative. Tilted implants can also be used for immediate loading when cross-arch stabilization is possible. The use of this design concept will be discussed in several chapters.
Fig 1-17 (a and b) Tilted implants have been placed to support this immediate load prosthesis. (Courtesy of Dr A. Pozzi.)
Fig 1-18 (a and b) Tilted implants have been used to restore an extended edentulous area in the posterior maxilla. (Courtesy of Dr A. Pozzi.)
Impact of Loading Protocols
The original treatment protocols for using machined-surface implants required several months’ delay after implant placement before the prosthesis could be delivered and placed into function. Most patients were required to use removable prostheses during this period. During the last several years, various immediate and early loading protocols have been proposed as implant macro shapes and implant surface textures have evolved (see Fig 1-17). Recent advances in CAD/CAM technologies have provided an additional stimulus to this trend. In this new edition, we offer guidelines regarding the various loading protocols currently in use, namely immediate loading, immediate provisionalization, early loading, and delayed (conventional) loading. The reader should understand that the immediate load prosthesis is a complex, technically demanding treatment and should be attempted only after the implant team has acquired the necessary experience. Mistakes in clinical judgment and execution can lead to a higher incidence of implant failure and loss of the prosthesis.
Impact of new prosthodontic materials
Several new materials and combinations of materials have been introduced to meet the unique demands placed upon implant-supported prostheses. Unfortunately, many materials used for tooth-supported prostheses have proven to be unsuitable for implant-supported prostheses. For example, the crazing and fracture of the resin-bonded systems used to restore extended edentulous areas with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in the posterior quadrants was quite disappointing. In this edition, we have added an additional chapter (chapter 4) devoted to materials and, where possible, we provide the reader with evidence-based guidelines regarding selection of the appropriate materials for any given application.
Impact of digital technologies upon the role of the restorative dentist
As mentioned previously, digital technologies have had a dramatic impact upon the means of implant site evaluation and implant surgery. These new technologies—CBCT scans and the associated software for guided surgery, navigation systems, and 3D jaw movement recording and analysis systems (electronic pantograph)—allow prosthodontists and restorative dentists to virtually analyze the 3D characteristics of the potential implant bone site and design and fabricate accurate surgical drill guides (Fig 1-19). These new technologies also help prosthodontists and restorative dentists to better determine which patients are best served by referral to a periodontist or oral surgeon for implant placement as opposed to placing the implants themselves.
Fig 1-19 (a) The maxillary second premolar is to be extracted due to an endodontic failure. (b to d) CBCT scans are obtained, and the position, angulation, and size of the implant are selected. (e) The appropriate software permits the design and fabrication of a surgical template. (f) A fl ap is refl ected. (g) The surgical drill guide is positioned, and the osteotomy site is prepared.
Follow-up data analysis
In recent years, clinical study design has improved, and as a result, clinical decisions have become increasingly evidence based. However, still far too many studies rely on short follow-up times when assessing outcomes. Many current studies report data with only 1 or 2 years of follow-up data, which in most instances is quite insufficient. Even the traditional 5-year follow-up period may not enable clinicians to make truly evidence-based choices, especially when attempting to determine whether bone and soft tissue levels ever become stable. Even when implant treatment is executed properly and under ideal conditions, phenomena such as mesial migration and continued eruption of adjacent natural dentition and apical migration of bone and peri-implant soft tissues may render the outcome suboptimal. These phenomena are rarely recognized at 5-year follow-up and therefore have been largely ignored in the implant literature and by those presenting continuing education programs of instruction. However, these phenomena are often seen after 5 or more years of follow-up (Figs 1-20 and 1-21), and given their frequency, patients must be informed that it is likely that their implant-retained restoration may need to be remade at some future date. In addition, it is the clinician’s responsibility to be aware of and plan for these eventualities and design prostheses that will mitigate their effects.
Fig 1-20 Three implants were used to restore the posterior teeth. A 20-year follow-up photograph. Note the significant mesial migration of the anterior teeth, resulting in a large space between the canine and the implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (black arrow). Note also the apical migration of bone and soft tissue around the two posterior implants (white arrows).
Fig 1-21 (a) Delivery; (b) 6-year follow-up; (c) 20-year follow-up. Note the continuous apical migration of bone and soft tissues around these implant-retained fixed dental prostheses. Also, note the progressive eruption and mesial migration of the adjacent natural dentition, and the numerous instances of chipping and fracture of the laminated porcelain. (Courtesy of Dr A. Davodi.)
Summary
Osseointegrated implants are highly predictable when used appropriately, and in many situations, implant treatment is as predictable or even more predictable than any of the conventional restorative procedures used to restore missing dentition. The key to predictable outcomes when implants are employed is accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment planning, taking into account significant patient history findings such as parafunctional activities as well as implant biomechanics and the occlusal schemes to minimize undesirable occlusal forces. Successful outcomes are best accomplished in a multidisciplinary setting. The purpose of these volumes is to share with clinicians the approach to patient evaluation and treatment that has enabled the authors to provide these services with a very high degree of success. Indeed, when implant therapy is planned and executed properly, taking into account the basic principles of prosthodontics, it is the authors’ expectation that once the implants are osseointegrated, while the prostheses that are retained by the implants may need to be replaced due to wear or breakage, the implants should last the lifetime of the patient. Recent innovations, including tilted implants, new and improved CAD/CAM systems, advances in implant body design, surgical enhancement of bone and soft tissues associated with the implant sites, and refinement of loading protocols, have improved implant and prosthesis success.
References
1. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977;16:1–132.
2. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387–416.
3. Moy P, Pozzi A, Beuemer J 3rd (eds). Fundamentals of Implant Dentistry. Vol 2: Surgical Principles. Chicago: Quintessence, 2016.
4. Steinberg AD, Willey R, Drummond JL. In-vivo comparisons of clot formation on titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated titanium. J Periodontol 1992;63:990–994.
5. Park JY, Gemmell CH, Davies JE. Platelet interactions with titanium: Modulation of platelet activity by surface topography. Biomaterials 2001;22:2671–2682.
6. Thor A, Rasmusson L, Wennerberg A, et al. The role of whole blood in thrombin generation in contact with various titanium surfaces. Biomaterials 2007;28:966–974.
7. Kammerer PW, Gabriel M, Al-Nawas B, Scholz T, Kirchmaier CM, Klein MO. Early implant healing: Promotion of platelet activation and cytokine release by topographical, chemical and biomimetical titanium surface modifications in vitro. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:504–510.
8. Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ 2003;67:932–949.
9. Aita H, Hori N, Takeuchi M, et al. The effect of ultraviolet functionalization of titanium on integration with bone. Biomaterials 2009; 30:1015–1025.
10. Att W, Ogawa T. Biological aging of implant surfaces and their restoration with ultraviolet light treatment: A novel understanding of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:753–761.
11. Cha JY, Pereira MD, Smith AA, et al. Multiscale analysis of the bone-implant interface. J Dent Res 2015;94:482–490.
12. Wang L, Wu Y, Perez KC, et al. Effects of condensation on peri-implant bone density and remodeling. J Dent Res 2017;96:413–420.
13. Khayat PG, Arnal HM, Tourbah BI, et al. Clinical outcome of dental implants placed with high insertion torques (up to 176 Ncm). Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:227–233.
14. Grandi T, Guazzi P, Samarani R, et al. Clinical outcome and bone healing of implants placed with high insertion torque: 12-month results from a multicenter controlled cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:516–520.
15. Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, et al. Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:428–434.
16. Norton MR. The influence of low insertion torque on primary implant stability, implant survival and maintenance of marginal bone levels—A cohort prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:849–857.
17. Duyck J, Vandamme K, Geris L, et al. The influence of micro-motion on the tissue differentiation around immediately loaded cylindrical turned implants. Arch Oral Biol 2006;51:1–9.
18. Frost HM. Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: A proposal. Anat Rec 1987;219:1–9.
19. Frost HM. Wolff’s law and bone structural adaptation to mechanical usage: An overview for clinicians. Angle Orhod 1994;64:175–188.
20. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Persson LG, Lindhe J. Bone regeneration at implants with turned or rough surfaces in self-contained defects. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:448–455.
21. Ogawa T, Nishimura I. Different bone integration profiles of turned and acid-etched implants associated with modulated expression of extracellular matrix genes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:200–210.
22. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:391–401.
23. Ogawa T, Nishimura I. Genes differentially expressed in titanium healing. J Dent Res 2006;85:566–570.
24. Butz F, Aita H, Wang CC, Saruwatari L, Ogawa T. Harder and stiffer osseointegrated bone to roughened titanium. J Dent Res 2006;85:560–565.
25. Takeuchi K, Saruwatari L, Nakamura H, Yang JM, Ogawa T. Enhancement of biomechanical properties of mineralized tissue by osteoblasts cultured on titanium with different surface topographies. J Biomed Mater Res 2005;72A:296–305.
26. Garetto LP, Chen J, Parr JA, Roberts WE. Remodeling dynamics of bone supporting rigidly fixed titanium implants: A histomorphologic comparison in four species including humans. Implant Dent 1995;4:235–243.
27. Roberts WE. Orthodontic anchorage with osseointegrated implants: Bone physiology, metabolism, and biomechanics. In: Higuchi KW (ed). Orthodontic Applications of Osseointegrated Implants. Chicago: Quintessence, 2000:161–190.
28. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the peri-implant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971–973.
29. Eggert FM, Levin L. Biology of teeth and implants: The external environment, biology of structures, and clinical aspects. Quintessence Int 2018;49:301–312.
30. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:71–76.
31. Wilson TG. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: A prospective clinical study. J Periodontol 2009;80:1388–1392.
32. Spear F. Using margin placement to achieve the best anterior restorative esthetics. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:920–926.
33. Abrahamsson I, Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T, Linder E, Wennerberg A, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment to titanium implants with different surface characteristics: An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:448–455.
34. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linde J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:568–572.
35. Rompen E. The impact of the type and configuration of abutments and their (repeated) removal on the attachment level and marginal bone loss. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012;(5 suppl):S83–S90.
36. Vigolo P, Gracis S, Carboncini F, et al. Internal- vs external- connection single implants: A retrospective study in an Italian population treated by certified prosthodontists. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:1385–1396.
37. Gilbert M, Vervaeke S, Jacquet W, Vermeersch K, Östman PO, De Bruyn H. A randomized clinical trial to assess to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:455–462.
38. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: A new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9–17.
39. Rodríguez X, Vela X, Calvo-Guirado JL, Nart J, Stappert CF. Effect of platform switching on collagen fiber orientation and bone resorption around dental implants: A preliminary histologic animal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1116–1122.
40. Paul S, Padmanabhan TV, Swarup S. Comparison of strain generated in bone by “platform-switched” and “non-platform-switched” implants with straight and angulated abutments under vertical and angulated load: A finite element analysis study. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24:8–13.
41. Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A. Peri-implant marginal bone level: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. Clin Periodontol 2012;39:1097–1113.
42. Enkling N, Jöhren P, Katsoulis J, et al. Influence of platform switching on bone-level alterations: A three-year randomized clinical trial. J Dent Res 2013;92(12 suppl):139S–145S.
43. Bassetti M, Kaufman R, Salvi GE, et al. Soft tissue grafting to improve the attached mucosa at dental implants: A review of the literature and proposal of a decision tree. Quintessence Int 2015;46;499–510.
44. Arisan V, Karabuda CZ, Mumcu E, et al. Implant positioning errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: A single-blind clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:190–204.
45. Celletti R, Pameijer CH, Bracchetti G, et al. Histologic evaluation of osseointegrated implants restored in nonaxial functional occlusion with pre-angled abutments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995;15:562–573.
46. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, et al. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:405–414.
47. Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Menini M, et al. The influence of cantilever length and implant angulation on stress distribution for maxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:5–13.
48. Bellini CM, Romeo D, Galbusera F, et al. A finite element analysis of tilted versus nontilted implant configurations in the edentulous maxilla. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:155–157.
