Gingival Papilla Dimensions in Anterosuperior Regions Adjacent to Single-Tooth Implants

This study compared the dimensions of gingival papillae in anterosuperior areas presenting at natural teeth (teeth sites) or single-tooth implants adjacent to natural teeth (implant-tooth sites) by analyzing determined distances. A total of 45 teeth and 46 implant-tooth sites were carefully selected. Clinical evaluation consisted of visual and quantitative analyses with millimeter grids on radiographs. Implant-tooth sites showed a smaller gingival papilla dimension than tooth sites (P < .01). Both evaluated distances (contact point to bone crest and between the roots of adjacent teeth or implant platform to root of adjacent tooth) in all groups significantly influenced the presence/absence of gingival papillae (P < .01). (Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2012;32:93-100.)

Fatigue Reliability of 3 Single-Unit Implant-Abutment Designs

Objectives: Because the mechanical behavior of the implant-abutment system is critical for the longevity of implant-supported reconstructions, this study evaluated the fatigue reliability of different implant-abutment systems used as single-unit crowns and their failure modes. Methods and Materials: Sixty-three Ti-6Al-4V implants were divided in 3 groups: Replace Select (RS); IC-IMP Osseotite; and Unitite were restored with their respective abutments. Anatomically correct central incisor metal crowns were cemented and subjected to separate single load to failure tests and step-stress accelerated life testing (n = 18). A master Weibull curve and reliability for a mission of 50,000 cycles at 200 N were calculated. Polarized-light and scanning electron microscopes were used for failure analyses. Results: The load at failure mean values during step-stress accelerated life testing were 348.14 N for RS, 324.07 N for Osseotite, and 321.29 N for the Unitite systems. No differences in reliability levels were detected between systems, and only the RS system mechanical failures were shown to be accelerated by damage accumulation. Failure modes differed between systems. Conclusions: The 3 evaluated systems did not present significantly different reliability; however, failure modes were different. (Implant Dent 2012;21:67-71)