Effects of Currently Available Surgical and Restorative Interventions on Reducing Midfacial Mucosal Recession of Immediately Placed Singleâ Tooth Implants: A Systematic Review

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141199/1/jper0092.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141199/2/jper0092-sup-0001.pd

The Significance of Keratinized Mucosa on Implant Health: A Systematic Review

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142238/1/jper1755-sup-0012.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142238/2/jper1755.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142238/3/jper1755-sup-0011.pd

Volumetric facial contour changes of immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization

BackgroundWhether immediate provisionalization can preserve facial tissue contour remains undetermined. The goal of this 12- month randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare three- dimensional (3D) ridge changes after immediate implant placement with and without immediate provisionalization.MethodsForty participants with an unrestorable maxillary anterior or premolar tooth were randomized to receive either a provisional crown (test) or standard healing abutment (control) after immediate implant placement. In each participant, three digital models taken before implant surgery, final crown delivery (4 months), and final follow- up (12 months) were registered to analyze linear deviation in 3D and volume changes of ridge contour at the implant site.ResultsThe mean value of mid- facial linear 3D spatial resorption ranged from 0.1 to 0.7 mm. Significant difference of linear changes of facial contour was noted over time and not between the groups. Facial volume changes at 12 months remained significantly higher in the control group than in the test group (17.4% versus 11.9%, P = 0.04).ConclusionsLinear changes of facial soft- tissue resorption at immediately placed implants were independent of immediate provisionalization. However, immediate provisionalization showed better volume preservation at the esthetic concern area (mid- facial margin and 2 to 6 mm above) at the final 12- month follow- up.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156220/2/jper10486_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156220/1/jper10486.pd

Influence of Thread Design on Implant Positioning in Immediate Implant Placement

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141508/1/jper1420.pd

Palatonasal Recess on Medial Wall of the Maxillary Sinus and Clinical Implications for Sinus Augmentation via Lateral Window Approach

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141407/1/jper1087.pd

Surgical Management of Periâ Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Metaâ Analysis of Treatment Outcomes

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140997/1/jper1027.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140997/2/jper1027-sup-0003.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140997/3/jper1027-sup-0004.pd

Clinical Outcomes of Using Lasers for Periâ Implantitis Surface Detoxification: A Systematic Review and Metaâ Analysis

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141218/1/jper1194-sup-0006.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141218/2/jper1194-sup-0005.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141218/3/jper1194.pd

Effect of the Timing of Restoration on Implant Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142037/1/jper0159.pd

Updated Clinical Considerations for Dental Implant Therapy in Irradiated Head and Neck Cancer Patients

An increasing number of reports indicate successful use of dental implants (DI) during oral rehabilitation for head and neck cancer patients undergoing tumor surgery and radiation therapy. Implant‐supported dentures are a viable option when patients cannot use conventional dentures due to adverse effects of radiation therapy, including oral dryness or fragile mucosa, in addition to compromised anatomy; however, negative effects of radiation, including osteoradionecrosis, are well documented in the literature, and early loss of implants in irradiated bone has been reported. There is currently no consensus concerning DI safety or clinical guidelines for their use in irradiated head and neck cancer patients. It is important for health care professionals to be aware of the multidimensional risk factors for these patients when planning oral rehabilitation with DIs, and to provide optimal treatment options and maximize the overall treatment outcome. This paper reviews and updates the impact of radiotherapy on DI survival and discusses clinical considerations for DI therapy in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/99596/1/jopr12028.pd

Schneiderian membrane perforation via transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A randomized ex vivo study with endoscopic validation

ObjectiveTo endoscopically determine the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation during transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation (SFE), in relation to the bone preparation technique, amount of bone graft, membrane elevation height and different surgical steps.Materials and methodsSeven cadaver heads corresponding to 12 maxillary sinuses were used to perform three SFE via transcrestal approach per sinus (36 elevations). Each sinus was randomly assigned to either the Sinus Crestal Approach (SCA) drill kit technique (experimental group) or the conventional osteotome technique (control group). During all phases of the surgery, the integrity of the sinus membrane was monitored through endoscopic examination.ResultsA significant difference was found in the incidence of perforation (p = 0.007) and vertical elevation height (p < 0.001) between the study groups, favoring the experimental group. A safety elevation threshold of 5 mm without bone graft and implant placement was estimated. A significant correlation was observed between the residual ridge height and the incidence of perforation (p < 0.001; OR = 0.51).ConclusionThe SCA drill kit may demonstrate superior osteotomy preparation and membrane elevation capabilities to the osteotome technique, and significantly when a 6â mm SFE is indicated. Residual ridge height and vertical elevation height are risk determinant factors.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147768/1/clr13388_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147768/2/clr13388.pd