Clinical Oral Implants Research最新文献

{"title":"Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of the Calibrated Intraoral Scan Protocol: An In Vitro Comparison of Three Scan Calibrator Designs In an Edentulous Implant Model","authors":"Shengtao Yang,&nbsp;Chenyi Zhang,&nbsp;Yan Bao,&nbsp;Shuo Wang,&nbsp;Lei Chi,&nbsp;Li Yue,&nbsp;Quan Yuan,&nbsp;Junying Li","doi":"10.1111/clr.70117","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70117","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To introduce a universal scan calibrator (SC) and to evaluate its accuracy in the calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) by comparison with two previously published SCs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Three SCs were evaluated on an edentulous implant model containing six scan bodies (SBs) positioned at the screw-retained abutment (SRA) level: (1) a universal SC with a C-shaped window (SC-CW), (2) an SC covering only the alveolar ridge (SC-R), and (3) an SC limited to the palatal region (SC-P). Each SC was attached to the model and scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner (IOS). The intraoral scans were subsequently corrected using the corresponding desktop scans of the SCs as reference data. A desktop scan of the model served as the reference. The test scans were superimposed onto the reference scan by: (1) using all SBs to evaluate the overall fit, and (2) using the first and second SBs to simulate the virtual Sheffield test. Linear and angular deviations of SRAs were measured using Python scripts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>When aligned by all SBs, all three groups exhibited significant improvements in trueness and linear precision following correction. In the virtual Sheffield test, no statistically significant differences were observed in post-correction trueness or angular precision at the ending SRA6. All three groups achieved clinically acceptable trueness and precision values following correction.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All three SCs yielded clinically acceptable impressions after correction under in vitro conditions. The novel SC represents a promising approach for CISP; however, further in vivo clinical evidence is required.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"747-759"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70117","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147454344","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":"Prevalence and Risk Indicators of Peri-Implant Diseases in China: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Xinbo Yu,&nbsp;Feng Wang,&nbsp;Dongning He,&nbsp;Jinming Wang,&nbsp;Runfa Wu,&nbsp;Dayong Zhang,&nbsp;Qin Fan,&nbsp;Haibin Xia,&nbsp;Zhe Qu,&nbsp;Yiqun Wu","doi":"10.1111/clr.70118","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70118","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aim</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implant diseases in a randomly selected Chinese population.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 819 patients with 1412 implants from eight university hospital databases were clinically and radiographically evaluated along with medical records to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases. Potential risk/protective indicators were explored using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>According to the 2017 EFP/AAP World Workshop case definitions, the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis at the subject and implant level was 36.4% and 31.3%, respectively. The prevalence of peri-implantitis at the subject and implant level was 4% and 3.3%, respectively. History of periodontitis and heavy smoking were identified as risk indicators for peri-implantitis in the final model.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this randomly selected diverse patient sample within China, the prevalence of peri-implant diseases was moderately high (40.4%) after a mean follow-up duration of 6.65 ± 1.18 years post loading.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"760-769"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70118","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147447018","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":"Prosthetic Outcomes of Implant-Assisted Maxillary Restorations in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Ethan Ng,&nbsp;John Rong Hao Tay,&nbsp;Maria Rahmat,&nbsp;Luis Mezzomo,&nbsp;Gil Alcoforado,&nbsp;Nikos Donos","doi":"10.1111/clr.70116","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70116","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the prosthetic outcomes of implant-assisted maxillary full-arch restorations with ≥ 3 years of follow-up.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in five databases to identify randomised controlled trials and prospective clinical studies involving patients who received full-arch rehabilitation in the maxilla. The primary outcome was prosthesis loss; secondary outcomes included complication-free prosthesis survival, complication-free implant survival, implant loss, technical complications, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), and marginal bone loss. Meta-analyses of proportions using random-effects models were performed to estimate pooled rates of prosthetic survival, success, and complications.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 20 studies involving 913 patients were included. Among these, 542 patients received fixed prostheses and 371 received removable prostheses. Most of the studies had an observation period in the range of 3 to 6 years, with only two studies (overdentures) reaching 10 years. Overall prosthesis loss was 4.6% (95% CI: 1.2%–10.1%) and complication-free prosthesis survival was 61.9% (95% CI: 48.4%–74.5%). Overall complication-free implant survival was 46.5% and technical complications were 62.9%. Pooled implant loss was 5.5% after adjusting for clustering effects and mean marginal bone loss was &lt; 0.8 mm. Subgroup analysis of fixed and removable prosthesis over a similar observation period revealed similar outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Implant-assisted maxillary full-arch restorations have low rates of prosthesis and implant loss. However, complication-free survival is moderate, underscoring the importance of maintenance and patient education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"677-692"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70116","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147471559","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":"Effect of Early Radiographic Bone Loss Before Loading on Implant-Related Outcomes: A Long-Term Retrospective Study","authors":"Dominick Moser,&nbsp;Engin Ozgur,&nbsp;Jennifer Tjokro,&nbsp;Clemens Raabe,&nbsp;Vivianne Chappuis,&nbsp;Gustavo Avila-Ortiz,&nbsp;Pablo Galindo-Moreno,&nbsp;Miguel Padial-Molina,&nbsp;Emilio Couso-Queiruga","doi":"10.1111/clr.70112","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70112","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This retrospective study primarily evaluated whether early radiographic bone loss (ERBL) predicts progressive bone loss (PBL), and secondarily assessed its association with implant survival and peri-implant diseases.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Adults with dental implants who were followed for at least 5 years were included. Implants presenting ERBL, defined as apical migration of the interproximal marginal bone involving exposure of the implant rough surface before insertion of the final prosthesis, were classified as ERBL+; non-exposure group was defined as implants without evidence of ERBL (ERBL−). Regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations with PBL.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 261 implants, 87 ERBL+, and 174 ERBL− were included. [Correction added on 8 March 2026, after first publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected.] Mean follow-up periods were 8.8 ± 3.0 years for the ERBL+ and 11.5 ± 1.7 years for the ERBL−. ERBL+ exhibited significantly greater PBL than ERBL− (−1.6 ± 1.0 mm to −2.3 ± 1.7 mm vs. −0.4 ± 1.2 mm to −0.5 ± 1.2 mm; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Implant survival was lower in ERBL+ (67.8%) compared with ERBL− (98.3%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 63.2% of implants in the ERBL+ group versus 5.2% in ERBL− (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and 68.4% of patients versus 6.1% of ERBL− (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). [Correction added on 8 March 2026, after first publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected.] ERBL was the strongest predictor of greater PBL (+1.46 mm; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). Male sex (+0.40 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.02), smoking (+0.61 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.004), each additional implant (+0.17 mm; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), single-crown restorations (+0.66 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.005), and bone-level implants (+0.32 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.005) were associated with increased PBL.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>ERBL is a strong predictor of PBL and is associated with a higher risk of implant loss and peri-implantitis onset.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"704-713"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70112","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147302930","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":"Trueness of Dental Implant Placement Using Dynamic Navigation or Non-Guided Approach by Novice Surgeons: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial","authors":"Víctor Ruiz-Romero,&nbsp;Octavi Camps-Font,&nbsp;Adria Jorba-Garcia,&nbsp;Alba Sánchez-Torres,&nbsp;Rui Figueiredo,&nbsp;Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón","doi":"10.1111/clr.70119","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70119","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To compare the trueness of implant placement in novice surgeons using dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS) versus a non-guided approach, assessing surgery time efficiency and patient-reported outcomes, including satisfaction, postoperative pain, and quality of life.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A double-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted. Consecutive partially edentulous patients were randomly assigned to d-CAIS or non-guided. Trueness outcomes, including apex and platform linear deviation (mm) and angular deviation (degrees), were measured by superimposing pre- and postoperative CBCT scans. Pre- and postoperative questionnaires assessed patient self-reported satisfaction and quality of life during surgery and in the postoperative period.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sixty patients (72 implants) were included. Thirty patients received 36 implants using d-CAIS, while another 30 patients received 36 implants with the non-guided technique. d-CAIS significantly reduced angular (MD: −5.51°; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), lateral platform (MD: −0.79 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.037), global platform (MD: −0.89 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.024), and global apex deviations (MD: −1.23 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.001). Although the implant placement time was significantly shorter with d-CAIS (<i>p</i> = 0.022), there was no statistically significant difference in overall surgery time between the groups (MD: −6.18 min; <i>p</i> = 0.190). Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption were similar, with high self-reported satisfaction. The surgical procedure did not result in significant changes in patient quality of life.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Implant placement using d-CAIS by novice surgeons shows higher trueness, without increasing surgery time. It also ensures high patient satisfaction and quality of life, with pain levels comparable to those of the non-guided technique.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p><b>ClinicalTrials.gov registration number:</b> NCT06028750.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"770-782"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70119","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147465370","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":"Risk Factors Associated With Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss Among Japanese Patients Receiving Supportive Periodontal Therapy: A 10-Year Retrospective Study","authors":"Daisuke Hasegawa,&nbsp;Tomoaki Mameno,&nbsp;Masahiro Wada,&nbsp;Yuichi Nishimura,&nbsp;Takeshi Kikuchi,&nbsp;Yoshinobu Onodera,&nbsp;Giovanni Serino,&nbsp;Kazunori Ikebe","doi":"10.1111/clr.70114","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70114","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aimed to investigate patient-related and prosthetic factors associated with peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent implant treatment and continued SPT for at least 10 years. MBL was evaluated using standardized dental radiographs obtained at baseline (1 year after prosthesis placement) and at follow-up (over 10 years after baseline). Patient-related factors (age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus, history of periodontitis, plaque control record [PCR], smoking, parafunctional habits, jaw position, and keratinized mucosa width [KMW]) and prosthetic factors (number of occlusal supports, fixation type, connection type, splinting, emergence profile [EP], and emergence angle [EA]) were analyzed. A standard linear mixed model assuming a normal distribution and identity link was applied, with patient and clinician as random effects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Data from 192 patients (600 implants) were analyzed in this study. Significant associations with MBL were observed for history of diabetes mellitus (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), history of periodontitis (<i>p</i> = 0.027), fewer occlusal supports (<i>p</i> = 0.002), mandibular location (<i>p</i> = 0.002), KMW &lt; 2 mm (<i>p</i> = 0.021), cement-retained prosthesis (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), EA ≥ 30° (<i>p</i> = 0.006), and implant–abutment joint type (<i>p</i> = 0.021). PCR (<i>p</i> = 0.506) and smoking (<i>p</i> = 0.720) were not significantly associated with MBL.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In patients receiving SPT, history of diabetes, history of periodontitis, jaw position, insufficient KMW, and prosthetic features such as EA and fixation type were associated with MBL.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"722-730"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70114","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147461778","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":"Prevalence of Buccal Ridge Concavities Following Implant Placement With Contour Bone Augmentation: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Sophia E. Vollath,&nbsp;Giorgina M. Wiedmer,&nbsp;Clemens Raabe,&nbsp;Manrique Fonseca,&nbsp;Vivianne Chappuis,&nbsp;Maria B. Asparuhova,&nbsp;Ningbo Zhao,&nbsp;Emilio Couso-Queiruga","doi":"10.1111/clr.70111","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70111","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the long-term prevalence of buccal ridge concavity (BRC) following implant placement with simultaneous contour bone augmentation (CBA).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of −0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, −0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and −0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"693-703"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70111","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147281374","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":"Placement Error and Bone Regeneration of Customized Titanium Mesh With Vacuum-Formed Placing Template for Anterior Maxillary Bone Defects: A Retrospective Case Series Study","authors":"Shunhao Zhang,&nbsp;Mi Zhou,&nbsp;Yuxuan Zhao,&nbsp;Wen Chen,&nbsp;Xiaoxiao Cai","doi":"10.1111/clr.70115","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70115","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate placement error, bone regeneration, and mesh exposure of three-dimensionally printed customized titanium mesh (3DPC Ti-mesh) guided by a vacuum-formed placing template in guided bone regeneration (GBR) for anterior maxillary defects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>10 patients (23 implants) with Terheyden 2/4 or 3/4 defects were included. CBCT data of pre-operation (T0), immediate post-operation (T2), and 5–8 months post-operation (T3) were reconstructed. These three models and preoperative design (T1) model were co-registered to a common coordinate system. Mesh displacement and contour discrepancy were measured. Bone regeneration was evaluated in terms of bone volume and implant-related bone height and width. Classification, time, and rate of mesh exposures were recorded.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Ti-mesh exhibited 0.57 ± 0.65 mm buccal displacement from T1 to T2 and 0.58 ± 0.57 mm apical displacement from T2 to T3. Mesh contour discrepancy was 0.70 ± 0.20 mm between T1 and T2 and decreased to 0.37 ± 0.12 mm between T2 and T3. Comparing T2 to T1, graft volume accuracy reached 91.1% ± 7.6%. Non-infected mesh exposure occurred in 26% implant sites. From T2 to T3, vertical bone resorption of 1.69 ± 1.56 mm and 0.14 ± 0.63 mm were recorded in exposed and non-exposed groups, respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To our knowledge, this is the first study to validate the use of a vacuum-formed template for positioning 3DPC Ti-mesh. Within the study limitations, this technique is a feasible approach for placing customized mesh in anterior maxillary GBR.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"731-746"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147447019","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":"Residual Cement Excess of Composite Versus Glass Ionomer Cement in Implant-Supported Single Crowns After Different Intraoral Exposure Times—A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","authors":"Maria Weinreuter,&nbsp;Kevin Richter,&nbsp;Thomas Stober,&nbsp;Peter Rammelsberg,&nbsp;Stefanie Kappel","doi":"10.1111/clr.70113","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70113","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the frequency and quantity of residual cement after cementation of monolithic zirconia crowns with glass ionomer or resin composite cement on customized ceramic abutments, following different intraoral retention times. The influence of margin location, quadrant and implant region was also assessed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>40 patients received cemented monolithic single crowns on customized ceramic abutments of bone-level implants. They were randomly assigned to four groups: GC0 (glass ionomer, immediate removal), GC4 (glass ionomer, 4 weeks), RC0 (resin composite, immediate), and RC4 (resin composite, 4 weeks). Each crown was fabricated with an occlusal access opening to enable abutment–crown removal. Cementation and excess removal were performed by one experienced clinician. After the specified time, suprastructures were unscrewed and examined for residual cement. Image analysis (GIMP) calculated the ratio of cement-covered to total abutment and peri-implant tissue surface.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Residual cement was detected on 39/40 abutments (97.5%), affecting 137/160 surfaces (85.6%). Median ratios were 0.020 (Q1 0.015, Q3 0.033) in GC0, 0.042 (0.014, 0.087) in GC4, 0.078 (0.054, 0.114) in RC0, and 0.130 (0.074, 0.195) in RC4. Resin cement left significantly more residues than glass ionomer (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Trends were also observed for margin location and implant region. Radiographs were insufficient to detect interproximal cement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Both cements left detectable residues. Resin cement produced significantly larger areas, while retention time did not reduce cement quantity. Glass ionomer appears preferable for implant-supported single crowns.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004158; DRKS00011743)</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"714-721"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70113","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147370994","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":"","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 5","pages":"i-ii"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148069555","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}