Dataset Information

Comparison of Osteoimmunological and Microbiological Parameters of Extra Short and Longer Implants Loaded in the Posterior Mandible: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the levels of TNF-α, PGE₂, RANKL, RANK, OPG, the markers of periimplant bone loss in peri-implant crevicular fluid obtained around standard and extra short implants. Moreover, the levels of putative oral pathogens were investigated in the submucosal biofilm samples.

Material and methods

The implants were divided into two groups according to their lengths: standard (≥8 mm) and extra short (4 mm). A total of 60 implants were researched in 30 patients. The probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), presence of bleeding on probing (BOP), 3-year survival rate (CSR), and bone loss (BL) were measured.

Results

No statistically significant difference was found in the values of PD, CAL, BOP, CSR, and BL between the groups (P> 0.05). Total amounts of PGE₂, TNF-α, RANKL, RANK, OPG, and RANKL/OPG were not statistically significantly different between the groups (P> 0.05). The abundance of F. nucleatum, T. forsythia, P. intermedia, P. gingivalis, S. oralis and T. denticola was compared between the groups and the results were not statistically significant (P> 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggested that PGE₂, TNF-α, RANKL, RANK, OPG, and RANKL/OPG in PICF, as well as microbiological parameters in submucosal biofilms, were similar between standard (≥8 mm) and extra short (4 mm) implants. Therefore, the implant length does not seem to influence the bone loss, levels of osteoimmunological and microbiological markers in the peri-implant tissues and survival rates.

SUBMITTER: Karcı BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8514233 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Osteoimmunological and Microbiological Parameters of Extra Short and Longer Implants Loaded in the Posterior Mandible: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Study.

Karcı Bi Lge BL Oncu Elif E

Acta stomatologica Croatica 20210901 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to evaluate the levels of TNF-α, PGE<sub>2</sub>, RANKL, RANK, OPG, the markers of periimplant bone loss in peri-implant crevicular fluid obtained around standard and extra short implants. Moreover, the levels of putative oral pathogens were investigated in the submucosal biofilm samples.<h4>Material and methods</h4>The implants were divided into two groups according to their lengths: standard (≥8 mm) and extra short (4 mm). A total of 60 implants were researc ...[more]

PMID: 34658370

Similar Datasets

Project description:Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1-3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1-3 years follow-up (MD=-0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=-0.25 mm, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Project description:The erbium-doped yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (Er:YAG) laser is thought to be the most promising laser for periodontal treatment; however, its application is still under consideration. The aim of this study was to compare Er:YAG laser monotherapy with conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) for chronic periodontitis using clinical parameters, the detection rate of periodontal pathogens, and the calprotectin level in gingival crevicular fluid.Twenty-seven participants with moderate-to-advanced chronic periodontitis were included. In a split-mouth design, the 2 half-mouths of each participant were randomly assigned to Er:YAG laser or SRP (combination of ultrasonic and manual instruments) treatment. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 and 6 months after treatment. At the same time points, gingival crevicular fluid was collected to analyze the detection rate of 6 periodontal pathogens by polymerase chain reaction and the levels of calprotectin by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.Both treatment groups showed significant reductions in probing depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), and clinical attachment level (CAL) from baseline to 6 months. For sites with 4 mm???PD???6?mm at baseline, SRP resulted in a greater reduction in PD and CAL than Er:YAG laser treatment, and the difference remained at 6 months post-treatment (P?=?.01 and P?<?.01, respectively). For sites with PD ?7?mm at baseline, the clinical parameters showed similar results between the 2 groups. SRP resulted in a lower detection rate of Porphyromonas gingivalis at 6 months post-treatment. The levels of calprotectin were significantly decreased from baseline to 6 months in both groups, without a significant difference between the groups.For mild pockets, conventional SRP may still be the preferred choice. For deep pockets, Er:YAG laser treatment could be an effective alternative. Studies are needed to explore more advanced instruments and new application methods for the Er:YAG laser for periodontal treatment in deep pockets.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Osteoimmunological and Microbiological Parameters of Extra Short and Longer Implants Loaded in the Posterior Mandible: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Study.

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of Osteoimmunological and Microbiological Parameters of Extra Short and Longer Implants Loaded in the Posterior Mandible: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets