Clinical Oral Implants Research最新文献

{"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}

{"title":"Marginal Bone Loss Around Bone-Level Fully Guided Implants With Direct Implant Connection Versus Intermediate Abutment: A Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Jordi Gargallo-Albiol,&nbsp;María José Zilleruelo-Pozo,&nbsp;Anna Treserra-Parra,&nbsp;Ernest Lucas-Taulé,&nbsp;Daniel Paternostro-Betancourt,&nbsp;Federico Hernandez-Alfaro","doi":"10.1111/clr.70141","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70141","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To determine the influence of an intermediate prosthetic abutment on peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) around two implant-supported fixed restorations in the posterior area.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study included patients with partial edentulism requiring two implants in the posterior maxilla or mandible. All implants were bone-level tapered implants, placed through a fully guided approach and finalized with a CAD/CAM temporary and final full zirconia restoration. The total sample comprised 30 patients (60 implants), divided into a Control group (direct to implant connection, non-intermediate abutment; 12 patients, 24 implants) and a Test group (intermediate abutment; 18 patients, 36 implants). The Test group was further divided into two abutment height subgroups: 1 mm (7 patients) and 2.5 mm (11 patients). MBL was measured using periapical x-ray imaging on the day of surgery, at definitive crown delivery, and at 4, 6, 12, and 24 months post-surgery.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The Test group (intermediate abutment) had lower MBL (0.83 ± 0.25 mm) than the Control group (1.17 ± 0.35 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.001). The secondary analysis of the abutment height subgroups did not differ significantly in MBL, although values showed a trend towards a more favorable for the highest intermediate abutment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This randomized clinical trial demonstrated that direct implant connection prosthesis induced greater MBL around implants in splinted crowns for an implant-supported fixed restoration when compared with the use of an intermediate abutment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06017115</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"970-982"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148142922","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":"Supracrestal Tissue Height Changes Around the Healing Abutment in the Posterior Region After Second-Stage Implant Surgery Measured by Intraoral Scanning: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Yanhua Chen,&nbsp;Jiamin Ding,&nbsp;Zonghe Xu,&nbsp;Wen Guo,&nbsp;Yuyu Liu,&nbsp;Jiang Chen,&nbsp;Dong Wu,&nbsp;Lin Zhou","doi":"10.1111/clr.70145","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70145","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The study aimed to explore the changes in the height of the soft tissue around the healing abutment at different time points after second-stage implant surgery.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were collected at baseline (second-stage surgery), and intraoral scans were obtained at baseline and multiple follow-up visits: after suture removal (1 week post-surgery), during impression taking, and immediately before performing restoration. Patients were grouped based on the time of impression taking (1 or 2 weeks post-suture removal: 1I or 2I), and further subgrouped according to the timing of performing restoration (2, 3, or 4 weeks post-impression: 2R, 3R, or 4R). Digital datasets were superimposed using tooth-supported reference areas before the intraoral height of the healing abutment and the supracrestal tissue height (STH) were measured at the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites at the different time periods.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 76 patients with 102 implants were enrolled in the study; specifically, 22 were in the 1I2R group, 18 in 1I3R, 14 in 1I4R, 14 in 2I2R, 18 in 2I3R, and 16 in 2I4R. The STH changes of 2I3R group were (0.37 ± 0.13), (0.41 ± 0.21), (0.43 ± 0.17), (0.43 ± 0.20) mm at the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites, which showed no statistically significant differences with 2I4R group whose STH changes were (0.35 ± 0.13), (0.43 ± 0.22), (0.39 ± 0.16), (0.41 ± 0.14) mm, respectively. the changes of these two groups were Larger Than Other groups, with significant differences (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Within the study limits, STH around healing abutment tended to stabilize approximately 6 weeks after second-stage surgery.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"1008-1019"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148142943","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":"Accuracy and Efficiency of Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Using Three Different Registration Methods—A Laboratory Study","authors":"Toshiki Nojiri,&nbsp;Kevser Pala,&nbsp;Ryo Yamamoto,&nbsp;Akihiro Fukutoku,&nbsp;Kazuhiro Kon,&nbsp;Shigemi Nagai,&nbsp;German O. Gallucci","doi":"10.1111/clr.70140","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70140","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Accurate implant placement with Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) is critical to ensure long-term success. Dynamic-CAIS systems enhance surgical precision through real-time feedback, though comparative data on their accuracy and efficiency remain limited. This study evaluated how different registration methods in d-CAIS systems influence implant placement accuracy and procedural time.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this laboratory study, three registration methods were assessed: ND group, XC group, and XM group. Five experienced operators placed 25 implants per group (75 total) in partially edentulous maxillary models. Postoperative CBCT scans were used to measure deviations at the implant entry point, apex, vertical depth, and angle. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test were used for statistical analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Mean 3D deviations at the implant entry point were 1.06 mm (ND), 0.71 mm (XC), and 0.90 mm (XM); at the apex 1.23 mm, 0.83 mm, and 1.07 mm, respectively. Vertical depth deviations at the apex were similar across groups: 0.61 mm (ND), 0.59 mm (XC), and 0.64 mm (XM). Angular deviation was highest in the ND group (2.96°) compared to XC (1.17°) and XM (1.02°), with a significant difference between ND and XM (<i>p</i> = 0.028). The average procedural time was shortest in the XM group (7.20 ± 2.48 min), though differences were not statistically significant.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although registration methods minimally affect overall accuracy, system-specific factors may influence angular deviation. Future studies should prioritize clinical trials with larger sample sizes and explore the influence of operator experience and learning curves.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"961-969"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148175496","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":"Mandibular Overdentures on Four Immediately Loaded Mini-Implants Versus Two-Delayed Loaded Regular Implants: 1-Year, Two-Center RCT on Patient-Reported Outcomes","authors":"Martin Schimmel,&nbsp;Cláudio Rodrigues Leles,&nbsp;Nicole Schenk,&nbsp;Simone F. M. Janner,&nbsp;Beat Wallkamm,&nbsp;Valérie G. A. Suter,&nbsp;Samir Abou-Ayash,&nbsp;Clemens Raabe","doi":"10.1111/clr.70143","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70143","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This one-year randomized clinical trial compared the effects of mandibular implant-overdentures (IODs) on two two-piece regular-neck tissue-level implants (Group A) or on four mini-implants (Group B) with different loading protocols in edentulous patients concerning dental Patient-Reported Outcomes (dPROs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Seventy-two participants were randomly assigned to Group A (<i>n</i> = 35) for treatment with two standard implants (3.3 mm diameter, conventional loading) with a stud-type abutment, or to Group B (<i>n</i> = 37) for treatment with four mini-implants (2.4 mm diameter, immediate loading) with a mini-stud-type abutment. Primary outcomes were measured using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI), the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G14), and the Denture Satisfaction Index (DSI), at visit #1—baseline (pre-treatment), visit #2—implant placement (immediate loading, Group B), visit #3–8-10-week follow-up (conventional loading, Group A; control visit, Group B), and visit #4–1-year post-placement. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, non-parametric comparison tests, effect-size measures, and multiple regression.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sixty-two participants completed the 1-year follow-up (Group A = 32; Group B = 30). Significantly improved dPROs were observed for both treatments after 1 year, compared with baseline (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), with similar effects in the two Groups. In the mini-implant group, higher improvement in satisfaction was observed after implant placement and immediate loading, compared to Group A (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Significant improvements in satisfaction and Oral Health Related Quality of Life were observed after 1 year, and benefits were observed earlier for mini-implants using immediate loading. Overall, findings support the use of four immediately loaded mini-implants in the mandible as a suitable treatment alternative for edentulous patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>ClinicalTrials.Gov ID: NCT03837158. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03837158.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"983-993"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13446240/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148142863","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":"Clinical Applicability of Artificial Intelligence–Driven Implant Planning and Surgical Guide Design in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A Registry-Based Cohort Study","authors":"Eslam Abdelwahab Dawood,&nbsp;Bahaaeldeen M. Elgarba,&nbsp;Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele,&nbsp;Reinhilde Jacobs","doi":"10.1111/clr.70144","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70144","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study evaluated the accuracy, time efficiency, and workflow consistency of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted versus human expert (HI) implant planning in the esthetic anterior maxilla.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Thirty-five single-tooth anterior maxillary cases with paired cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scans (IOS) were retrospectively recruited. A hybrid AI framework (Relu Automate), integrating rule-based constraints (≥ 2 mm labial bone, ≥ 1 mm palatal bone) with deep learning segmentation, was compared with conventional HI. The performance of each planning approach was evaluated based on the following: coronal and apical linear deviations, angular deviation, bone thickness, wax-up alignment, surgical guide fit, planning time, and consistency. Statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>AI-assisted planning demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy with mean coronal, apical, and angular deviations of 0.96 ± 0.6 mm, 1.24 ± 0.66 mm, and 4.3° ± 2.9°, respectively, meeting clinical thresholds in 94.3% (coronal), 85.7% (apical), and 94.3% (angular) of cases. Bone thickness measurements were equivalent between groups (labial: 2.0 mm for both groups; palatal: 1.5 mm AI versus 1.3 mm HI; <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). AI-assisted planning decreased the median planning time by 41.4% (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001) while achieving perfect consistency compared to human experts (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). ICC analysis revealed excellent agreement (≥ 0.9) across all spatial coordinates between AI and HI planning.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>AI-assisted implant planning achieved accuracy comparable to expert planning with improved efficiency and consistency, while AI-designed surgical guides demonstrated fit comparable to human-designed guides in the maxillary esthetic zone.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"994-1007"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13446256/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148155548","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":"Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Screw‐Retained Monolithic Zirconia Implant Crowns on Standardized Titanium Base Versus Customized Titanium Abutments– 3‐Years Data","authors":"Jenni Hjerppe, Stephanie Wenk, Shunsuke Fukuba, Sven Mühlemann, Ronald E. Jung, Daniel S. Thoma","doi":"10.1111/clr.70165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70165","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives To assess 3‐year interim results of implant‐supported monolithic zirconia single crowns on standardized titanium base vs. customized titanium abutments. Material and Methods Patients in need of posterior implant were recruited. After implant healing time, patients were randomly allocated to: Ti‐Base ( <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 30) with a monolithic zirconia crown on a standardized Ti‐Base abutment or Custom ( <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 30) with a monolithic zirconia crown on a customized titanium abutment. Implant crowns were evaluated at Baseline (BL), 1‐year (1Y‐FU), and 3 years (3Y‐FU) follow‐ups for marginal bone level changes (MBL), survival, biological and technical outcomes, and PROMs. Chi‐squared and Fisher's exact test were used to assess association between categorical variables, Mann–Whitney's test to compare the distribution of parameters between groups, with a significance level of 5 <jats:italic>%</jats:italic> (α = 0.05). Results Fifty‐one patients (23 Custom, 28 Ti‐Base) attended 3Y‐FU visit. No implant crowns were lost. Similar median MBL changes from BL to 3Y‐FU and comparable biological outcomes were observed in both groups ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05). No major technical complications were observed, but one minor chipping of Ti‐Base zirconia crown was recorded at 3Y‐FU, resulting in a technical complication rate of 3.6% for this group. At the 3Y‐FU, all patients in the Custom group and 26 patients (92.9%) in the Ti‐Base group were very satisfied with the treatment ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05). Conclusions Within the limitations of this interim analysis, monolithic zirconia single crowns on either standardized titanium base or customized titanium abutments demonstrated stable marginal bone levels, high survival rates, high patient satisfaction, and no major technical complications during the 3Y follow‐up period. Trial Registration <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" xlink:href=\"https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00012733\">https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00012733</jats:ext-link>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148675372","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":"Peri-Implantitis Prevalence and Risk Indicators in Patients Seen at Periodontal Units in Malaysia: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Mohamad Adib Jaafar, Norhayati Abas, Khamiza Zainol Abidin, Normah Yacob, Norul Nurdiyana Nordin, Izni Iwani Majid, Zuhrah Mohd Sood, Lau Guat Syin, Heng Wei Chei, Tan Wan Jiun, Rasidah Ayob","doi":"10.1111/clr.70166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70166","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the prevalence and identify risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) among implant patients in Malaysian periodontal units.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This multicenter cross-sectional study included 352 patients with 647 implants (mean loading time 6.5 ± 4.0 years) across seven Malaysian states. Clinical evaluation included full-mouth plaque and bleeding scores (FMPS, FMBS), probing depth, tissue phenotype, and prosthetic condition. Peri-implant conditions were classified according to 2017 World Workshop definitions. Generalized Estimating Equation models identified risk indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Healthy was observed in 53.7% of patients and 59.7% of implants. PIM affected 36.4% of patients and 31.5% of implants; PI affected 9.9% of patients and 8.8% of implants. Bone-level implants and keratinized tissue width (KTW) < 2 mm were common risk indicators for both conditions. At patient level, FMBS ≥ 10% predicted PI (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.19-5.05), and ≥ 3 implants were associated with PIM (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.02-3.11). At implant level, PI was further associated with poor prosthetic condition (OR 4.94; 95% CI 2.38-10.26), splinted crowns (OR 3.48; 95% CI 1.06-11.42), and bridge restorations (OR 3.32; 95% CI 1.31-8.42). No associations were found for age, sex, smoking, or diabetes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Peri-implantitis affect one in ten implant patients. Due to modest sample size and wide confidence intervals, these findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Potential risk indicators including elevated FMBS, reduced KTW, defective prostheses, and bone-level implants highlight the need for routine assessment of tissue phenotype and prosthetic integrity during maintenance care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2026-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148663433","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}