The purpose of this study was to conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial to compare and evaluate the effect of provisional restorations fabricated by two techniques, namely, conventional and three-dimensional (3D) printing processes on the peri-implant hard and soft tissues over early nonfunctional loaded implants in the mandibular posterior region.

A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted across 24 subjects broadly divided into two groups with 12 dental implants each, i.e., GpIC with conventionally fabricated provisional restoration and GpIID with 3D printed fabricated provisional restoration. The prosthetic phase was carried out at 2 weeks, and subjects were evaluated at baseline (at the time of prosthesis placement), 2 months, and 4 months for peri-implant marginal bone level, mucosal suppuration, sulcular probing depth, and modified sulcular bleeding index. Patient satisfaction was assessed using 5-item questionnaires at 4 months. The intragroup comparison for all the data was done using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The intergroup comparison for all the data was done using Mann-Whitney U-test. The comparison of frequency of responses between GpIC and GpIID was done using Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Nonsignificant difference was observed in all the hard and soft tissue parameters between the groups at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months (P > 0.05). Improvement in bleeding on probing was found to be greater around dental implants restored with 3D printed provisional restoration than dental implants restored with conventionally fabricated provisional restoration from baseline to 4 months of follow-up, and the difference in finding was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was a statistically nonsignificant difference seen for the frequencies between the groups (P > 0.05) for all questions related to patient satisfaction.

The effect of conventionally fabricated and 3D printed provisional restorations on peri-implant hard and soft tissues was comparable to each other on an early nonfunctionally loaded implant in the mandibular posterior region.

BACKGROUND Smoking may be a risk factor for marginal bone loss (MBL) and oral mucosal inflammation surrounding dental implants. This retrospective study evaluated the effects of smoking on dental implants in patients with fixed implant-supported prostheses over a period of 36 months following loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS We assessed 120 patients (68 women, 52 men, ages 19-74 years (mean age: 55.10 years) with 315 implants. Implants were classified according to location in the upper and lower jaws and anterior (placed between canines) or posterior (placed between pre-molars and molars) as follows: 1=maxilla anterior, 2=maxilla posterior, 3=mandible anterior, 4=mandible posterior. We also measured MBL, plaque index (PI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), and probing depth (PD). P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS MBL was statistically greater in smokers (P<0.001) as compared to non-smokers in both jaws. MBL did not vary significantly by location in either group (smokers: p=0.415; non-smokers: p=0.175). Mean PI and PD scores were significantly higher in smokers as compared to non-smokers (P<0.001). A positive correlation was found between PI and PD scores in both groups. No statistically significant difference in SBI was observed between the 2 groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Smoking was associated with increases in marginal bone loss around implants, independent of their location in the jaws. Also, both plaque indices and probing depths were greater in smokers than in non-smokers.

This retrospective study assessed radiographic bone changes and prevalence of inflammation around teeth and neighbouring implants supporting a single-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), in relation to implant- positioning and characteristics.

Patients with an implant-supported FDP in function for at least 1 year were recruited. The radiographic horizontal and vertical position of the implants were identified. Probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and radiographic bone level around implants and adjacent teeth at the time of placement, prosthesis delivery, and the most recent review were assessed.

98 patients with 195 implants were evaluated for a mean of 37.8 months. Survival rate was 99.6% and success ranged from 31.3% to 91.3% when different success criteria were utilized. Significantly greater interproximal bone loss around teeth and higher prevalence of interproximal peri-implant inflammation occurred when the horizontal distance of BL implants was <1 mm, but not with TL implants. There was no significant impact of the corono-apical positioning of the implants on marginal bone loss.

Proximity of implants to adjacent teeth of <1 mm leads to increased prevalence of inflammation and interproximal bone resorption at the teeth adjacent to bone level implants.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An electronic search was performed to identify publications from January 1980 until March 2016 on 9 databases. The prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis were assessed in different subgroups of patients and the prevalences were adjusted for sample size (SSA) of studies. For 12 of 111 identified putative risk factors and risk indicators, forest plots were created. Heterogeneity analysis and random effect meta-analysis were performed for selected potential risk factors of peri-implantitis. The search retrieved 8357 potentially relevant studies. Fifty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the prevalence of peri-implantitis on implant level ranged from 1.1% to 85.0% and the incidence from 0.4% within 3 years, to 43.9% within 5 years, respectively. The median prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.0% (SSA 10.9%) for regular participants of a prophylaxis program, 18.8% (SSA 8.8%) for patients without regular preventive maintenance, 11.0% (SSA 7.4%) for non-smokers, 7.0% (SSA 7.0%) among patients representing the general population, 9.6% (SSA 9.6%) for patients provided with fixed partial dentures, 14.3% (SSA 9.8%) for subjects with a history of periodontitis, 26.0% (SSA 28.8%) for patients with implant function time ≥5 years and 21.2% (SSA 38.4%) for ≥10 years. On a medium and medium-high level of evidence, smoking (effect summary OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.25-2.3), diabetes mellitus (effect summary OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.5), lack of prophylaxis and history or presence of periodontitis were identified as risk factors of peri-implantitis. There is medium-high evidence that patient's age (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87-1.16), gender and maxillary implants are not related to peri-implantitis. Currently, there is no convincing or low evidence available that identifies osteoporosis, absence of keratinized mucosa, implant surface characteristics or edentulism as risk factors for peri-implantitis. Based on the data analyzed in this systematic review, insufficient high-quality evidence is available to the research question. Future studies of prospective, randomized and controlled type including sufficient sample sizes are needed. The application of consistent diagnostic criteria (eg, according to the latest definition by the European Workshop on Periodontology) is particularly important. Very few studies evaluated the incidence of peri-implantitis; however, this study design may contribute to examine further the potential risk factors.

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.