Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research最新文献

{"title":"Prevalence of Peri-Implant Diseases in Computer-Guided Implant Sites: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Praewvanit Asavanamuang,&nbsp;Piyarat Sirirattanagool,&nbsp;Shruti Jain,&nbsp;Lorenzo Tavelli,&nbsp;Matthew Finkelman,&nbsp;Yash Brahmbhatt,&nbsp;Maria Elisa Galarraga-Vinueza","doi":"10.1111/cid.70061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70061","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The present cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence and the risk indicators associated with peri-implant diseases (PIDs) in patients who were subjected to computer-guided implant surgery.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patients that were treated and screened during regular maintenance visits at one university center were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Implants were diagnosed into the categories of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis according to the 2017 World Workshop established case definitions. Bivariate and multivariable analyzes were conducted to identify local parameters and patient characteristics as associated risk indicators with PIDs, bleeding on probing (BOP) and marginal bone level (MBL) change.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 115 patients with 417 implants were evaluated during a regular maintenance visit at one university center. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis prevalence in digitally-guided implant sites were 67.8% and 9.6% at the patient level, respectively. Former and active smokers, active or a history of periodontitis, implant loading time, plaque index (PI), and absence of soft tissue graft were significantly associated with peri-implantitis. Bruxism, gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, and type of oral hygiene aid (OHI) displayed a significant association with peri-implant MBL changes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The prevalence of peri-implant diseases in digitally-guided implant sites was comparable for mucositis and appeared lower for peri-implantitis when compared to previous outcomes with nondigital guided implant placement. Notably, patient-related factors and local clinical characteristics such as smoking, periodontitis, higher PI scores, and implant loading time were significantly associated with the occurrence of PIDs, while soft tissue grafting had a protective effect.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144256603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Alessandro Pozzi,&nbsp;Lorenzo Arcuri,&nbsp;Paolo Carosi,&nbsp;Andrea Laureti,&nbsp;Jimmy Londono,&nbsp;Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/cid.70059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70059","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Statement of the Problem&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;The application of digital impressions for complete-arch implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) remains controversial, and data from a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing intraoral scanning (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) remain limited.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Purpose&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To evaluate and compare the accuracy of currently available digital technologies, specifically IOS and SPG, in capturing complete-arch implant impressions.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Materials and Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;An electronic and manual search was conducted on May 4, 2024, across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases following PRISMA guidelines. The search targeted studies (excluding case reports) that assessed the in vivo, in vitro, or ex vivo accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete-arch implant impressions. Two investigators screened eligible studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. Accuracy was the primary outcome, including linear, angular, surface deviations, and inter-implant distance. Three meta-analyses were performed on angular deviations, trueness, and surface deviations, trueness, and precision using a random-effect model.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Thirteen studies (3 in vivo and 10 in vitro) met inclusion criteria, displaying methodological heterogeneity (8 analyzing surface, 3 linear, 8 angular, and 3 interimplant distance deviations). The studies evaluated seven IOS (Aoralscan 3, Carestream 3600, iTero Element 2, iTero Element 5D, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) and two SPG devices (PIC and ICam4D). The number of implants ranged from 4 to 8. SPG reported higher accuracy than IOS in 10 of 13 studies. One in vitro study found IOS to have higher trueness but lower precision, another in vitro study found higher accuracy with IOS, and one in vivo study showed comparable trueness. Meta-analyses of in vitro studies revealed significant differences favoring SPG in surface deviation trueness and precision, and angular deviation trueness (&lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.05), with reported effects of 3.426, 4.893, and 1.199. SPG showed surface trueness and precision, and angular trueness mean ranges 5.18–48.74 and 0.10–5.46 μm, and 0.24°–0.80°, while IOS ranges 14.8–67.72 and 3.90–37.07 μm, and 0.28°–1.74°.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Within study limitations, SPG showed to be a more reliable technology than IOS for complete-arch digital implant impression, exh","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144232461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Varying Influence of Maxillary Sinus Dimensions on New Bone Formation With Various Graft Materials in Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation—A Retrospective Study”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/cid.70054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70054","url":null,"abstract":"<p>S. Krennmair, M. Weinländer, U.Y. Schwarze, M. Malek, T. Forstner, and G. Krennmair, “Varying Influence of Maxillary Sinus Dimensions on New Bone Formation With Various Graft Materials in Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation—A Retrospective Study,” <i>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</i> 27 (2025): e70014. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70014.</p><p>In the above article, the presentation of the authors' pre- and family names were incorrect. This has been corrected in the online version of the article and the correct author list is shown below for reference:</p><p>Stefan Krennmair | Michael Weinländer | Uwe-Yalcin Schwarze | Michael Malek | Thomas Forstner | Gerald Krennmair</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70054","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144213794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “In Vitro and In Vivo Accuracy of Autonomous Robotic vs. Fully Guided Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/cid.70060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70060","url":null,"abstract":"<p>H. Jin, Z. Qinmeng, W. Xueting, et al., “In Vitro and In Vivo Accuracy of Autonomous Robotic vs. Fully Guided Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery,” <i>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</i> 26 (2024): 385–401, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13302.</p><p>In Figure 1, panels (d) and (h) were mistakenly duplicated during figure assembly. A corrected version of Figure 1 is provided, with panel (h) properly updated.</p><p>In Table 3, the first quartile (Q1) and third quartile (Q3) values for BDA and MDA in the ARI group were transposed. This correction does not affect the statistical significance or the study's conclusions. A revised version of Table 3 is provided.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70060","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144213792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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 Accuracy and Systematic Precision Between Autonomous Dental Robot and Static Guide: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Na Chen,&nbsp;Yuanyuan Wang,&nbsp;Huawei Zou,&nbsp;Yu Chen,&nbsp;Yuanding Huang","doi":"10.1111/cid.70050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70050","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aimed to compare the implant placement accuracy and systematic precision between Robotic-Assisted Implant Surgery (RAIS) and Fully Guided Static Computer-Assisted Implant surgery (sCAIS), as well as to explore factors influencing implant placement accuracy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patients who underwent digital guided implant surgery between October 2022 and July 2024 were included in this study. The patients were divided into the RAIS and sCAIS groups. Post-operative CBCT scans were performed to measure three-dimensional (3D) deviations and overlap rate (OR) of each implant. The differences in 3D deviations and OR between the two CAIS methods were analyzed, along with factors that could impact implant accuracy, such as anterior versus posterior sites, maxilla versus mandible, bone defects, implant morphology, and free-end sites.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>254 patients were enrolled, with 125 patients receiving 227 implants in the RAIS group and 129 patients receiving 227 implants in the sCAIS group. The RAIS group demonstrated significantly better performance than the sCAIS group in coronal global deviation (0.69 [0.52] mm vs. 0.97 [0.64] mm), apical global deviation (0.75 [0.57] mm vs. 1.40 [0.82] mm), angular deviation (1.51 [1.43]° vs. 3.44 [2.78]°), and OR (80 [17]% vs. 64 [20]%) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in coronal horizontal mesiodistal deviation at the anterior sites, nor in coronal horizontal mesiodistal and buccolingual deviations at the posterior sites.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In most edentulous cases, implant placement accuracy assisted by the RAIS system was significantly higher than that of the sCAIS system. The control of Coronal horizontal (mesiodistal) deviation by sCAIS is comparable to that of RAIS. Additionally, the RAIS system demonstrated better systematic precision.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144213791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Magnesium Resorbable Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration in Critical Size Defect Model in Rabbits—Histomorphometric Analysis","authors":"Ilan Beitlitum,&nbsp;Fatma Rayyan,&nbsp;Gil Slutzkey,&nbsp;Perry Raz,&nbsp;Rachel Sarig","doi":"10.1111/cid.70055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70055","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the effectiveness of a Mg-based membrane as a barrier for guided bone regeneration in rabbits calvaria.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Nine rabbits had four critical size defects created in each calvarium, randomly filled with a blood clot or bovine xenograft. One side was covered with the Mg-based membrane, and the control was left without membrane. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis was performed to compare new bone formation with the pristine bone.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Mg-supported membrane for guided bone regeneration (GBR) is safe and promotes bone formation in critical size defects (CSD) in a rabbit calvaria. Gas accumulation was observed in a third of the specimens due to membrane degradation. Histomorphometric analysis revealed greater bone formation in the defects grafted with the Mg membrane (4.85 ± 1.73 mm²) compared to the blood clot (2.14 ± 2.22 mm²). Treating lesions with filler or the magnesium membrane resulted in significantly higher bone formation in all three examined regions (25%–62%). New bone formation was observed beyond the original bone envelope.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Mg-based membrane supports guided bone regeneration (GBR), and when used in combination with a bone graft, enhances the performance despite the gas accumulation associated with membrane degradation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Clinical Relevance</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Limited data exist on the use of Mg-based membranes in GBR and its effect on bone formation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144213795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Reconstructive Therapy of Peri-Implantitis Following Non-Surgical Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/cid.70058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70058","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soldini, M.C., R. Pons, J. Nart, A. Monje, N. Carrió, and C. Valles, “Reconstructive Therapy of Peri-Implantitis Following Non-Surgical Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” <i>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</i> 27 (2025): e70024, 10.1111/cid.70024</p><p>In page 13 of the published article in the Acknowledgements section, the original Acknowledgements was inadvertently omitted in the final submission.</p><p>The text “<i>The authors acknowledge Dr. Cristina Esquinas for her support during data analysis. The study was self-funded. Xenografts and barrier membranes were donated by Straumann</i>,” was incomplete. This should have read: “<i>This work was supported, in part, by 2021 SGR 00626 (Generalitat de Catalunya), SCOI—Study and Control of Oral Infections, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya. The authors acknowledge Dr. Cristina Esquinas for her support during data analysis. The study was self-funded. Xenografts and barrier membranes were donated by Straumann</i>.”</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70058","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144213789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Application of Biologics in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Surgery: A Narrative Review","authors":"Tara Aghaloo,&nbsp;Pascal Valentini,&nbsp;Reule Yardley,&nbsp;Homayoun H. Zadeh","doi":"10.1111/cid.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is one of the most predictable hard tissue augmentation procedures performed to support long-term dental implant survival and success. However, risks and complications still exist with this procedure including pain, bleeding, infection, oroantral communication, and inadequate bone regeneration for implant placement. To decrease some of these potential complications and improve outcomes, biologics are becoming more widely used in maxillary sinus augmentation. Autologous blood concentrates (ABCs) can be utilized as a membrane to seal a sinus membrane perforation or as “sticky bone” to mix with particulate material to make a congealed bone graft that will stay in place and be less likely to migrate from the site of placement or into the sinus cavity. Although the data is heterogeneous and somewhat conflicting, there is some evidence to support the use of ABCs for bone graft consolidation and overall wound healing due to the growth factors contained in the ABC. In addition, clotting factors in the plasma aid in hemostasis, which is an essential first step in the wound healing cascade. Individual growth factors such as rhBMP-2 and rhPDGF-BB are also clinically available for use in bone grafting procedures such as MSFA. rhBMP-2 is FDA approved for maxillary sinus augmentation, and clinical trials demonstrate de novo bone formation to facilitate dental implant placement. However, studies do not show a significant improvement over autogenous bone or bone substitutes such as xenograft or allografts. rhPDGF-BB has limited studies in this area, but may decrease residual particulate graft material and aid in increasing vital bone when bone substitutes are used. However, the use for MSFA is “off label” and few studies are available. Finally, enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has no data, and therefore, limited use for MFSA.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144213790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Vitro Analysis of Structural Integrity and Surface Alterations of Reused Healing Abutments","authors":"Won-Woo Lee,&nbsp;Jong-Hun Jun,&nbsp;Jeong-Hun Lee,&nbsp;Soorack Ryu,&nbsp;Kyung-Gyun Hwang,&nbsp;Chang-Joo Park","doi":"10.1111/cid.70064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70064","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aimed to investigate the changes in healing abutments (HAs) after use based on an in vitro comparison with unused HAs and to evaluate the effectiveness and clinical implications of reusing HAs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifty used HAs were collected from affiliated clinics of the Department of Dentistry at Hanyang University Hospital and analyzed for surface damage, protein contamination, and microgap formation using three-dimensional laser microscopy and microcomputed tomography. The interfacial microgap between the implant and the abutment was measured at different tightening torques (5 N·cm, 10 N·cm, and 15 N·cm). Additionally, bacterial leakage and growth at various tightening torques were assessed by incubating reused HAs over different time periods.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reused HAs exhibited significant surface roughness, protein contamination, and larger microgap compared to unused HAs. The average microgap for reused HAs was 43 μm, whereas unused HAs showed no detectable gap. Bacterial leakage was significantly higher with reused HAs, particularly in those subjected to more than two tightening cycles. Tightening torques of 15 N·cm effectively eliminated the microgap and minimized bacterial leakage, whereas lower torques (5 N·cm and 10 N·cm) resulted in considerable bacterial growth.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reusing HAs increases the risk of surface damage, protein contamination, microgap formation, and bacterial leakage, potentially compromising implant treatment outcomes. Higher tightening torque, (15 N·cm) significantly reduces microgap and bacterial leakage at the implant - HA imterface. Clinicians are advised to limit the reuse of HAs. However, if reuse is necessary, an appropriate tightening torque should be applied following a careful assessment of the clinical conditions of each HA.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70064","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient-Reported Healing of Static Computer-Assisted Sinus Lateral Window Osteotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Nattakarn Narongchai,&nbsp;Sirida Arunjaroensuk,&nbsp;Keskanya Subbalekha,&nbsp;Paksinee Kamolratanakul,&nbsp;Atiphan Pimkhaokham,&nbsp;Nikos Mattheos","doi":"10.1111/cid.70057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70057","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The primary aim was to investigate differences in patient-reported healing outcomes between static computer-assisted sinus floor augmentation (SCA-SFA) and the conventional freehand approach (SFA).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patient-reported healing outcomes were recorded in visual analog scale (VAS) on days 1–7 and 14, and intra and postoperative complications were assessed on weeks 2 and 4 after surgery. Operation time and operators' assessment of efficacy for SCA-SFA utility were recorded. Independent t-tests and Chi-square exact tests were performed for statistical evaluation between groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Forty patients underwent lateral sinus augmentation (20 freehand-SFA + 20 SCA-SFA). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to PROMs and intra, postoperative complications, apart from a higher level of swelling for SCA-SFA patients on day 2 after surgery (<i>p</i> = 0.04). The use of SCA-SFA significantly reduced the time needed to conduct the window osteotomy (SFA 18.56 ± 12.17 min vs. SCA-SFA 11.43 ± 4.75 min; <i>p</i> = 0.022) and the total surgery duration (SFA 69.89 ± 20.08 min vs. SCA-SFA 56.24 ± 16.01 min; <i>p</i> = 0.023).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Within the limitations of the study, SCA-SFA should be preferred when the reduction of surgical time is a priority while the costs of the intervention do not play a major role, and the design of the surgical guide should strive for minimal invasiveness.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p><b>Clinical Trial Registry:</b> TCTR20230427005</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144179295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}