Clinical Oral Implants Research最新文献

{"title":"Adjunctive Electrolytic Implant Surface Decontamination in the Reconstructive Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis—A Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Erik Regidor,&nbsp;Alberto Ortiz-Vigón,&nbsp;Jessica Berglundh-Gottlieb,&nbsp;Jan Derks,&nbsp;Kostas Bougas","doi":"10.1111/clr.70152","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70152","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the adjunctive effect of electrolytic cleaning in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 40 patients (44 implants) with peri-implantitis-associated intra-bony defects were included in this single-center randomized controlled trial. Surgical decontamination of implant surfaces was initiated by use of a rotating titanium brush. Following random allocation, adjunctive electrolytic cleaning was performed in the test group. Xenogeneic bone substitute and a resorbable collagen membrane were then used in both groups. Clinical parameters including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding/suppuration on probing, buccal mucosal recession (REC), and keratinized mucosa were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Radiographic marginal bone levels (MBL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite measure including implant survival, complete absence of BoP/SoP, PPD ≤ 5 mm and REC ≤ 1 mm at 12 months.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>At 12 months, no implants were lost. The composite outcome was complete at 27.3% of control and 40.0% of test implants (<i>p = 0.41</i>). Mean PPD reductions were 4.5 ± 2.6 mm (control) and 3.8 ± 2.3 mm (test), while MBL gains were 1.9 ± 2.4 mm and 2.1 ± 2.0 mm, respectively. No significant intergroup differences were observed for any clinical, radiographic or PROs. Post-surgical complications occurred in the test group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of surgical therapy of peri-implantitis were favorable at 12 months. The adjunctive use of electrolytic cleaning provided no added benefit over the use of a rotating titanium brush alone.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <p><b>Trial Registration:</b> ISRCTN17197337 (ISRCTN)</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 9","pages":"1109-1117"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148335892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Block Versus Particulate Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral for Guided Bone Regeneration of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: A 5-Year Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Anina N. Zuercher,&nbsp;Erkan Evci,&nbsp;Riccardo D. Kraus,&nbsp;Ronald E. Jung,&nbsp;Franz J. Strauss,&nbsp;Goran Benic","doi":"10.1111/clr.70150","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70150","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the 5-year dimensional stability of buccal hard-tissues following guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant dehiscence defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) blocks or particulate.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patients requiring single-tooth implants and presenting a buccal dehiscence defect (≥ 3 mm) at implant placement were randomly allocated to GBR using either particulate DBBM or an individually shaped DBBM-block, both covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Buccal hard-tissue thickness was assessed using cone-beam computed tomography postoperatively, at 6 months and at 5 years. Buccal horizontal thickness at the implant shoulder and corono-buccal thickness measured at 45° were recorded. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone levels, clinical parameters and implant survival. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare the groups to account for within-subject correlations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twenty-two of 24 patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Buccal hard-tissue thickness decreased over time in both groups, however, the block-group showed significantly greater dimensional stability. At 5 years, mean buccal horizontal hard-tissue thickness was 1.36 ± 1.16 mm in the block-group and 0.07 ± 0.16 mm in the particulate-group (adjusted mean difference, −1.2 mm; 95% CI, −1.9 to−0.6; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Corono-buccal thickness at 45° was also significantly greater in the block-group (adjusted mean difference, −0.3 mm; 95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1; <i>p</i> = 0.002). Marginal bone levels and clinical parameters showed no clinically relevant differences. No implant loss or peri-implantitis was observed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>GBR using either DBBM blocks or particulate DBBM resulted in similar peri-implant clinical outcomes and implant survival at 5 years. However, DBBM blocks provided superior long-term preservation of the buccal hard-tissue contour.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clinical Trial Registration Number, DRKS00005803</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 9","pages":"1096-1108"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70150","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148336174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A 3-Year Split-Mouth Randomized Non-Inferiority Controlled Trial Comparing Cement-Retained Monolithic CAD-CAM Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns for Single Posterior Implant Restorations","authors":"Xiaosong Yi,&nbsp;Donghao Wei,&nbsp;Shuman Quan,&nbsp;Yingjie Kong,&nbsp;Xi Huang,&nbsp;Xi Jiang,&nbsp;Ye Lin,&nbsp;Ping Di","doi":"10.1111/clr.70154","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70154","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate whether monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate (LS₂) crowns are non-inferior to monolithic CAD-CAM zirconia (ZrO₂) crowns with respect to clinical and radiographic outcomes in single posterior implant restorations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patients with bilateral single-tooth implants at homologous posterior sites were enrolled. Each implant was randomly assigned to receive either a monolithic CAD-CAM ZrO₂ crown (Control) or a LS₂ crown (Test), both cemented onto customized titanium abutments. Marginal bone level change (ΔMBL) was the primary outcome. Non-inferiority of LS₂ relative to ZrO₂ was evaluated using a prespecified margin of −0.5 mm for the paired difference in ΔMBL (LS₂−ZrO₂). Implant and prosthesis survival, biological and technical complications, periodontal parameters, and FIPS were assessed as secondary outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 40 patients completed the 3-year follow-up. The survival rates were 97.5% for ZrO₂ and 100% for LS₂, with one implant loss in the ZrO₂ group. Biological complication rates were 5% for ZrO₂ and 15% for LS₂ (<i>p =</i> 0.219), while technical complication rates were 2.5% and 5% (<i>p =</i> 1.000), respectively. No crown fractures, chipping, or debonding were found in either group. The ΔMBL was −0.62 ± 1.22 mm for ZrO₂ and −0.36 ± 1.07 mm for LS₂. The paired mean difference in ΔMBL (LS₂−ZrO₂) was 0.26 mm (95% CI: −0.17 to 0.70 mm). The lower confidence limit remained above the prespecified non-inferiority margin of −0.5 mm, demonstrating non-inferiority of LS₂ with respect to ΔMBL. No statistically significant differences were observed in mSBI, mPLI, or FIPS between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.106, 0.201, 0.825).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Monolithic CAD-CAM LS₂ crowns exhibit non-inferior clinical and radiographic outcomes to ZrO₂ crowns over a 3-year follow-up period. Customized titanium abutments with cemented monolithic all-ceramic crowns represent a reliable treatment option for single posterior implant-supported restorations in the medium term.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn): ChiCTR2200062023</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 9","pages":"1129-1143"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148365311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Osteogenic Outcomes and Associated Modifiable Factors of 3D ‐Printed Individual Titanium Mesh Exposure: A Retrospective Analysis","authors":"Minxue Yang, Yaxin Bai, Yuling Yang, Yujie Zhu, Houqi Zhou, Yuanding Huang, Tao Chen","doi":"10.1111/clr.70171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70171","url":null,"abstract":"Objective To identify independent risk factors for titanium mesh exposure following 3D‐printed individualized titanium mesh (3D‐PITM)‐assisted alveolar bone augmentation and to evaluate the impact of exposure on bone regeneration outcomes. Method This retrospective study included 52 patients with severe alveolar bone defects who underwent 3D‐PITM‐assisted guided bone regeneration (GBR) between January 2019 and August 2025, comprising 25 patients with mesh exposure and 27 without. Demographic characteristics and surgery‐related variables were collected; univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify independent risk factors. Additionally, this study measured bone volume, bone height, and bone width at different time points to evaluate the impact of 3D‐PITM exposure on bone augmentation. Results The results showed that smoking, thin gingival biotype, and maxillary defects were significantly associated with mesh exposure ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05): smoking (OR = 5.16, 95% CI: 1.28–20.82, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.021), thin gingival biotype (OR = 4.21, 95% CI: 1.05–16.82, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.042), and maxillary defects (OR = 11.49, 95% CI: 1.25–105.68, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.031). Regarding bone augmentation, the exposure group showed significantly greater resorption in bone volume ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.0063), height ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001), and width ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001) than the nonexposure group. Moreover, early exposure resulted in more severe bone loss than late exposure across bone volume ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.0048), height ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.0019), and width ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion This study found that 3D‐PITM exposure significantly impairs bone regeneration, with smoking, thin gingival biotype, and maxillary defects identified as independent risk factors. Preoperative identification of these risk factors may help reduce mesh exposure and improve bone augmentation outcomes.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148842924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of Fixed Dental Prostheses Supported by Teeth or Implants in the Posterior Region—A Long‐Term Retrospective Multicenter Study","authors":"Zahra Athab Abduljabbar, Lars Hjalmarsson, Victoria Franke Stenport, Jir Barzangi, Anders Magnuson, Alf Eliasson","doi":"10.1111/clr.70169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70169","url":null,"abstract":"Background Few long‐term studies compare tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in the posterior region. Objectives To compare the 5‐ and 10‐year survival and complication outcomes of tooth‐ and implant‐supported FDPs and to assess patient‐reported effects. Material and Methods This retrospective multicenter clinical study investigates patients treated with 3–5 units tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses (TSFDPs) and 1–4 units implant‐supported FDPs in the posterior region at two specialist dental clinics (2009–2019) using clinical and radiographical examinations and Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 (OHIP‐14). Survival, biological, and technical complications as well as patient‐reported effects were recorded. Results A total of 180 patients with 238 FDPs: 113 TSFDPs, 71 implant‐supported crowns (ISCs), and 54 implant‐supported fixed partial prostheses (ISFPPs) were examined after a mean follow‐up of 10 years. The 5‐year cumulative survival rate for TSFDPs and implant‐supported FDPs was 98% ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.71). The 10‐year cumulative survival rates were 94% for TSFDPs and 93% for implant‐supported FDPs ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.87). Eight TSFDPs, three ISCs, and five ISFPPs failed. Biological complications were recorded in 24.8% of TSFDPs and in 9.6% of implant‐supported FDPs ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.012). Technical complications were recorded in 29.9% of TSFDPs and in 27% of implant‐supported FDPs ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.62). Low OHIP‐14 scores were reported in patients with tooth‐supported (4.8 ± 6.7), implant‐supported (3 ± 4.3), and with both types of FDPs (3.5 ± 3.6). Scores that indicate a good OHRQoL. Conclusion Tooth‐ and implant‐supported FDPs had high survival rates after 5 and 10 years. Biological complications had the highest impact on prostheses failure.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148768314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ten-Year Post-Loading Outcomes of Subcrestally Placed Implants With Internal Conical Connections at 0.5 mm Versus 1.5 mm Depth: A Multicentre Within-Person Randomised Controlled Trial","authors":"Marco Esposito,&nbsp;Riccardo Federico Visconti,&nbsp;Federico Gualini,&nbsp;Fabio Rigotti,&nbsp;Cristian Mazzarini,&nbsp;Diego Longhin,&nbsp;Mauro Grigoletto,&nbsp;Amerigo Giudice,&nbsp;Katia Greco,&nbsp;Sergio Salina","doi":"10.1111/clr.70135","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70135","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate whether placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests confers any clinical benefits.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns were enrolled in a split-mouth design across six centres. Each site was randomly assigned to receive an implant placed either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally. Patients were followed up to 10 years post-loading. Outcome measures included crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eight patients were lost to follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding implant failures (7 vs. 3; <i>p</i> = 0.125), patients experiencing complications (10 [18.5%] vs. 7 [13%]; <i>p</i> = 0.508), PES (7.66 ± 3.14 vs. 7.46 ± 2.97, <i>p</i> = 0.510). Ten years post-loading, patients in the 0.5 mm group exhibited an average marginal bone loss of 0.38 ± 0.84 mm, while those in the 1.5 mm group showed 0.17 ± 0.45 mm, a difference that was not statistically significant (difference = −0.21 mm; 95% CI −0.47 to 0.04; <i>p</i> = 0.097). No patient preference for implant placement depth was noted. No significant differences in outcomes were found between centres.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Subcrestal implant placement at either 0.5 or 1.5 mm, when at least 1 mm of surrounding bone is present, seems not to affect the long-term outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"905-921"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70135","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147754545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Collagen Membrane Fixation Technique Affects Its Space Maintenance Capacity After Flap Closure: An Ex Vivo Analysis","authors":"Muhammad H. A. Saleh,&nbsp;Javier Calatrava,&nbsp;Nataly Zambrana,&nbsp;Lucrezia Parma-Benfenati,&nbsp;Hamoun Sabri,&nbsp;Istvan Urban,&nbsp;Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/clr.70146","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70146","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To quantify immediate graft displacement following tension-free flap closure in non-contained alveolar ridge defects regenerated using three membrane fixation strategies in an ex vivo human model.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eighteen sites from six fresh cadaveric heads with non-contained defects underwent horizontal guided bone regeneration using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane stabilized by no fixation (NF), periosteal sutures (PS), or titanium fixation pins (FP). Techniques were applied sequentially. Cone-beam CT scans were obtained at baseline, post-grafting, and after passive closure. Linear ridge width was measured at 12 standardized positions, and graft volumes were segmented from STL reconstructions. Mixed-effects multilevel linear regression assessed width changes, while Friedman and paired Wilcoxon tests evaluated volumetric outcomes, with Tukey-adjusted contrasts for intergroup comparisons.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fixation pins virtually eliminated graft displacement (−6.7 ± 87 mm³) and achieved the highest stability (81.2% ± 8.2%), significantly outperforming periosteal sutures (−96 ± 165 mm³; 70.1% ± 4.5%) and no fixation (−247 ± 150 mm³; 44.4% ± 17.9%) (loss <i>p</i> = 0.030; stability <i>p</i> = 0.002). Ridge collapse was greatest with no fixation (−1.37 ± 0.85 mm) compared with PS (−0.40 ± 0.62 mm) and FP (−0.28 ± 0.61 mm). After adjustment, PS and FP reduced collapse by 0.96 mm (<i>p</i> = 0.012) and 1.11 mm (<i>p</i> = 0.004), respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Even after passive flap release and tension-free closure, membrane fixation, particularly with titanium pins, provides superior resistance to graft displacement in non-contained defects, while unfixed membranes allow substantial graft loss and are therefore not recommended in non-contained defects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"1020-1032"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13446262/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148223576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of Long vs. Short Concave Neck in One-Piece Implants Inserted 1 mm Subcrestally: A Pre-Clinical In Vivo Study","authors":"Hadi Antoun,&nbsp;Frank Bonnet,&nbsp;María Permuy Mendaña,&nbsp;Daniele Botticelli,&nbsp;Giovanna Iezzi,&nbsp;Morena Petrini","doi":"10.1111/clr.70139","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70139","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim was to assess the influence of one-piece implant concave neck height on soft- and hard-tissue healing on a canine model.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Monoblock implants with a transgingival concave neck were randomly inserted 1 mm subcrestally. Eight implants were characterized by a neck 2.8 mm long (group long) and eight implants by 1.8 mm (group short). After 3 months, the implants were retrieved and processed for histology. The quality and quantity of peri-implant tissues were investigated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Histological analysis showed that all implants were osseointegrated, and peri-implant mucosa surrounded the abutment's surface in all 16 specimens. The qualitative analysis of soft tissues showed some differences among the groups. In particular, in the group “long”, collagen fibers perpendicular to the implant's longitudinal axis were intertwined with the transverse fibers. Perpendicular fibers were detected in the same area as the short-neck implants, but the longitudinal fibers were less numerous and farther from the surface. No statistically significant differences were found in comparisons of soft and hard tissues between the short and long groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>After 3 months, no statistically significant quantitative differences were found between long and short concave necks for most of the measurements performed, although qualitative differences in collagen fiber orientation were observed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"948-960"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13446257/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147927160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Oral Fine Motor Control in Patients With Anterior Maxillary Single Implants, Freestanding Teeth and Teeth Connected in 3-Unit Bridges: An Experimental In Vivo Study","authors":"Nicole Winitsky,&nbsp;Aron Naimi-Akbar,&nbsp;Jan-Ivan Smedberg,&nbsp;Anastasios Grigoriadis","doi":"10.1111/clr.70136","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70136","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The oral fine motor control is compromised in patients with full-arch, bimaxillary bridges compared to those with natural teeth. No previous studies have examined the differences between the prosthetic treatments small anterior bridges and single anterior implants (SI). The aim of the study was to evaluate oral fine motor control in patients with single anterior tooth loss, comparing anterior teeth connected in 3-unit resin bonded bridges (RBB) and free-standing teeth adjacent to single implants (SI).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A standardized hold-and-split task was performed in 16 patients on two occasions: once, with a RBB in place and once after replacement with a SI. The four conditions connected tooth (CT), pontic (P), free-standing tooth (T), and single implant (SI) were tested. Outcome variables hold force, variability of hold force, split force, and duration of split were analyzed using paired sample <i>t</i>-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test, with a significance level set at <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The results showed significant differences between T and SI for all variables (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) except for duration of split (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05), and between CT and P regarding hold force and duration of split. No significant differences were found between CT and T or P and SI for any of the outcome variables (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Oral fine motor control on a SI was compromised compared to a T and comparable to a P of a 3-unit RBB. However, splinting a tooth (CT) in a 3-unit anterior RBB does not seem to compromise the oral fine motor control.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"922-930"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13446234/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147855695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient- and Surgeon-Reported Outcomes of Static Versus Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Zhilin Luo,&nbsp;Wantong Zhou,&nbsp;Min Wang,&nbsp;Lianyi Xu,&nbsp;Xijin Du,&nbsp;Yingguang Cao,&nbsp;Ke Song","doi":"10.1111/clr.70138","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70138","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess implant placement accuracy, efficiency, and patient- and surgeon-reported outcomes of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) in single-tooth posterior edentulism.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this randomized clinical trial, 36 patients requiring posterior single-tooth implant restoration were allocated to sCAIS (<i>n</i> = 18) or rCAIS (<i>n</i> = 18). Preoperative planning for all patients was performed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. The DICOM datasets were imported into planning software to conduct virtual implant planning in accordance with prosthetic-driven and bone-supported principles. Implant placement accuracy was assessed by superimposing CBCT-based preoperative planning with postoperative cone beam computed tomography, measuring linear (coronal, apical) and angular deviations. Surgery time and patient-reported experiences (anxiety, intraoperative discomfort, postoperative pain) and surgeon-reported feedback were recorded for each group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The rCAIS group demonstrated significantly superior accuracy, with lower coronal (0.70 ± 0.44 mm vs. 1.02 ± 0.37 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.018), apical (0.75 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.11 ± 0.40 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.009), and angular deviations (1.20° ± 0.44° vs. 2.38° ± 1.03°, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). However, rCAIS required significantly longer surgery time (49.53 ± 12.96 min vs. 24.38 ± 6.51 min, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and resulted in greater intraoperative patient discomfort (3.00 ± 1.60 vs. 1.67 ± 1.87, <i>p</i> = 0.019). Surgeons reported easier access to the surgery site with sCAIS (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), whereas the complexity of the surgical procedure and primary implant stability of both groups were comparable.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The rCAIS provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to sCAIS but is associated with longer procedures and increased patient discomfort. The sCAIS offers reliable implant placement with simpler operation and greater adaptability. Clinical decision-making should balance the benefits of accuracy with patient comfort, efficiency, and resource considerations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06059573) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078795)</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"931-947"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148052985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}