Journal of Osseointegration 2020-01-17T18:08:29+00:00 Cristina Calchera Open Journal Systems <h1>Journal of Osseointegration</h1> <p>The aim of the<strong> Journal of Osseointegration</strong> in the Implant Dentistry field is to publish high quality contemporary, timely, innovative, interesting and clinically relevant information that will be used for improvement of the care of our patients. The rapid growth of research and more application of advanced clinical procedures has led us to start this new journey, that we hope will be a journey of success. The objective of all the people involved in this project will be to present the data in an accurate, fair and unbiased way. Each paper will be given the close attention that it merits and only manuscripts with well designed projects, conducted in a manner that follows sound scientific principles will be accepted. Also the rapidity of the reviewing process will be a key goal, this will be ensured by a web based submission and colse supervision on the reviewing process. A concerted effort will be made to shorten the time between submission, correction, acceptance of the manuscript, online publication, and print publication. We aim also for a high standard of technical editing, which serves to ensure the consistency of the content style and the fact that the language should be as unambiguous and clear as possible. Manuscripts dealing with basic research, biomaterials, tissue engineering techniques, clinical research and technical innovations will be accepted. The help of all involved people will be of outstanding relevance in achieving this mission.<br><em>Access to the contents of the Journal of Osseointegration is open and free to all users: this is our small contribution to global exchange of knowledge. Users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of our articles.</em></p> Does number of implants or type of attachment affect patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures? 2020-01-17T18:08:29+00:00 S. Kucukkurt H. C. Tükel <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Aim </strong>This study aimed to determine, from the patients’ perspective, the optimal number of implants and the type of attachment used to support a mandibular overdenture. </span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Materials and methods</strong> This study was conducted with 166 patients who had received new implant-retained overdentures (IODs) in the mandible and conventional total prostheses in the maxilla, and have been using for at least 1-year. Three types of attachment (ball attachment, bar holder, and locator) were connected to either two or four implants. Patients completed the OHIP–14 questionnaire, and the results were statistically analyzed. </span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Results</strong> Patients were, in general, satisfied with their mandibular IODs (OHIP-ADD: 7.07 ±9.09, OHIP-SC: 0.95 ±2.11). While the satisfaction rate was higher for males (P &lt; 0.05), there was no difference for age factor (P &gt; 0.05). Higher satisfaction was observed for 4-implant support (P = 0.014), especially with bar holders (OHIP-SC: 0.13 ±0.43). No difference was found between the locator and ball attachment in prostheses with 2-implant (P &gt; 0.05). </span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Conclusion </strong>Four implant-support, in particular, with bar-holders, exhibited higher satisfaction. There was no difference between locator and ball attachment in terms of patient satisfaction.</span></p> 2020-01-17T13:26:29+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Anodization as a promising surface treatment for drug delivery implants and a non-cytotoxic process for surface alteration: a pilot study. 2020-01-15T09:39:34+00:00 M. F. Kunrath N. Penha, Dr. J. C Ng, Professor <p class="p1"><strong>Aim</strong> Surface treatments use industrial processes in which surface contamination can occur. In this context, this study aimed to demonstrate a surface treatment process, from laboratory samples and clinical implants, named anodizing, analyze their tendencies to surface contamination as well as their properties.</p> <p class="p1"><strong>Materials and Methods</strong> Laboratorial samples of pure titanium were anodized. Investigated by scanning microscopy (SEM), dispersive energy spectroscopy (EDS) and wettability tests. Four implant systems available in the current market were chosen by different surface treatments (anodizing, double acid etching and particle blasting) and investigated by SEM/EDS.</p> <p class="p1"><strong>Results </strong>Laboratory samples showed a nanomorphology surface, free of contaminants and good liquid/surface interaction. The implant system with anodization treatment did not present elements outside the standards. However, the implants treated with acid attack and blasting were found different chemical elements like aluminum and magnesium.</p> <p class="p1"><strong>Conclusions </strong>Anodizing proved to be a contaminant-free surface treatment both in the laboratory and clinical implants. In addition, its promising property of owning TiO2 nanotubes suggests an inherent evolution to biomedical implants for drug delivery systems other than all surface treatments developed to date.</p> 2020-01-07T14:25:47+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Angulated implants: a novel concept for the rehabilitation of severe atrophic maxilla with 3 years follow up supported by Finite Element Analysis 2019-12-09T15:47:34+00:00 P. Venkat Ratna Nag P. Sarika T. Bhagwatkar V. Dhara <p><strong>Aim</strong> Rehabilitation of maxillary edentulous arches is a challenging task for the Dentists. Angulated implants used for implant placement which utilizes bicortical engagement of implants at the nasal cortex and pterygoid region in a flapless manner. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome when 6 tall angulated implants were placed in a maxilla and restored with screw-retained fixed prosthesis after 3 years follow up.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> Total of 40 patients were considered for implant placement in the maxilla, 20 patients who underwent implant placement followed by delayed loading and 20 patients who underwent the same surgical procedure followed by immediate loading. Angulated implants were supported by Finite element analysis (FEA) comparing stress distribution on cortical, cancellous and basal bone on mesial and distal side of each implant with All-on-6 concept for maxillary arch. <span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>Results </strong>Angulated implant shows 100% survival rate in implants and prosthesis, in both delayed and immediate loading protocols of maxillary rehabilitation. The FEA based on von Misses stress, shows little higher values for All-on-6 for cortical, cancellous and basal bone when compared with Angulated 6 implants design. <span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong> Angulated implants a novel concept shows a good survival rate. Due to the bicortical engagement of implant the chances of marginal bone resorption around the implant, implant and prosthesis failure is minimal.</p> 2019-12-09T14:27:35+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Evaluation of implant stability and marginal bone loss in immediate implant using “nano bone” versus “autogenous bone” for the treatment of patients with unrestorable single tooth: a randomized controlled trial 2019-10-29T13:51:14+00:00 S. A. N. Adam A. E. Elarab A. R. A. Rahman D. F. Abel Rahim <p><strong>Aim</strong> A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the advantages of using nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) bone graft compared to the "gold standard" autogenous bone graft in the jumping gap with immediate implants.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>Materials and methods</strong> Immediate implant placement was performed for the treatment of patients with an unrestorable single tooth. All eligible patients, in total 18, were randomly selected and divided in two groups, controls (AG) and study group (NB), in equal proportions (9 for eah group). Six month later implants were surgically exposed and the measurements of the secondary outcomes were taken.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>Results</strong> Implant stability outcomes showed no significant differences in the groups. Marginal bone level of both groups at baseline and after six months showed a significant difference, as<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>bone loss occurred more in NB group than AG group.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong> Within the limits of the present study the placement of NB graft in the jumping gap contributed in decreasing and reduced the morbidity of the donor site compared to autogenous bone (AB) group. Trial had been registered in both The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) PACTR201512001348246 and clinical NCT02613663.</p> 2019-10-28T15:32:21+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##