SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS SHORT OVERVIEWS ON RECENTLY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
ISSUE5 |2026 Edited by Dr. Marcin Maj
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
CONTENT EDITOR’S CHOICE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3
Stratified Randomized Controlled Trial ∅3.3of mm Versus ∅ 4.1mm Hydrophilic Titanium Zirconium Implants Supporting Posterior Mandibular Fixed Prostheses in Hyperglycaemic 3 Subje Assessment of Narrow -Diameter Implants Placed in the Posterior Region for Rehabilitation with a Single Crown: A Retrospective -Sectional Cross Clinical Study ................................ ................................ ..4 Immediate implant placement and loading using a prefabricated final reconstruction. -of- A proof concept study ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5 Osteoimmunomodulatory Effects of Zirconia -Modified Titanium: Promoting Macrophage Activation and Osteoblast Mineralization at the Dental Implant................................ Interface ................................ 6 Long-Term Incidence of Peri -Implant Conditions:-Year 25 Results of The Bernese Prospective Cohort Study................................. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .7 Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain -Fused-to-Metal Implant -Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: -Year 3 Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical ................................ Trial. ....8 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9
Page | 2
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
EDITOR’S CHOICE Clin Oral Implants Res. 2026 Sep 24
Stratified Randomized Controlled Trial of ∅3.3 mm Versus ∅ 4.1 mm Hydrophilic Titanium -Zirconium Implants Supporting Posterior Mandibular Fixed Prostheses in Hyperglycaemic Subjects. Supriya Ebenezer, Sreelakshmi Viswanath, Chitradevi Ramanathan, Alampalli V Ramesh, Vinay V Kumar
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The aim of this study is to compare ⌀3.3 mm and ⌀4.1 mm hydrophilic titanium -zirconium implants supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in mandibular distal -extension situations among participants with varying degrees of hyperglycaemia. Participants were stratified according to HbA1c (5.8%-< 7.0% vs. ≥ 7.0%) and subsequently randomized within each stratum to receive either ⌀3.3 mm or ⌀4.1 mm titanium -zirconium implants. Each participant received a two -implant -supported multi unit FDP. The primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) change at 12 months after prosthesis delivery. Secondary outcomes included implant stability quotient (I SQ), peri -implant indices, Healing Index and patient -reported outcomes.
RESULTS •
Implant survival was 100%, with no peri -implantitis. At 12 months, MBL did not differ significantly between the ⌀3.3 and ⌀4.1 mm groups
•
Participants with HbA1c ≥ 7 % had approximately sevenfold higher odds of MBL ≥ 0.5 mm than those with HbA1c < 7%.
•
Secondary ISQ was significantly higher with ⌀4.1 mm implants (79.6 vs. 76.1; p < 0.001), whereas early healing was better with ⌀3.3 mm implants (p = 0.005).
•
Chewing ability improved significantly from baseline to 12 months irrespective of implant diameter or HbA1c category (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS At 1 year, ⌀3.3 mm and ⌀4.1 mm hydrophilic Ti -Zr implants demonstrated no statistically significant difference in MBL although ⌀4.1 mm implants demonstrated higher stability. Patient -reported chewing ability improved substantially following rehabilitation for both implant diameters. Higher HbA1c was associated with greater odds of clinically relevant MBL. Adapted from Supriya Ebenezer et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2026 Sep 24 , for more info about this publication, click
Page | 3
HERE
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2026 Aug 26;0(0):1 -23
Assessment of Narrow -Diameter Implants Placed in the Posterior Region for Rehabilitation with a Single Crown: A Retrospective Cross -Sectional Clinical Study Mirela Bergmann Carlucci, Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira Fernandes, Mohamed Rahhal, Mona Samir Gaber, Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes, Julio Cesar Joly
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of NDIs rehabilitated with a single crown in the posterior regions of the maxilla and the mandible. Patients treated with Ti -Zr NDIs in the posterior region with single crowns were screened. Radiographic and clinical examinations were per formed to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL), peri -implant probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), mobility, palpation, and percussion. Digital images were analyzed to measure and evaluate proximal bone loss. The implants were divided into groups: G roup I (Success), II (Satisfactory), III (Compromised), and IV (Failure). The Kruskal -Wallis test was used (p=0.05).
RESULTS •
A total of 25 patients (56 Ti -Zr NDIs) were evaluated (mean follow with 100% survival rate; no mobility or pain was observed.
•
Radiographic analysis showed a mean mesial MBL of 0.83 ± 0.64 mm and a distal MBL of 0.91±0.78 mm.
•
No significant correlation was found between MBL and PPD (p=0.45) or BoP (p=0.26).
•
According to the success criteria, 91% (n=49) of implants were classified as successful (Group I), 7% (n=4) as satisfactory (Group II), and 2% (n=1) as compromised (Group III), with no failures recorded.
-up: 3.3±1.1 years),
CONCLUSIONS NDIs in the posterior regions rehabilitated with a single feasible option for oral rehabilitation.
Adapted from Mirela Bergmann Carlucci this publication, click HERE
Page | 4
-unit crown are a reasonable, reliable, and
et al., Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2026 Aug 26;0(0):1
-23, for more info about
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
Int J Esthet Dent. 2026 Aug 17;21(3):294 -309
Immediate implant placement and loading using a prefabricated final reconstruction. A proof -of-concept study Mohit Kheur, Tabrez Lakha, Supriya Kheur, Daniel Thoma, Ronald E Jung
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The aim of this study was to evaluate patient -reported outcome measures (PROMs) and prosthetic outcomes in patients receiving a definitive restoration after extraction and immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Twelve patients in need of tooth extraction and immediate impla nt placement and provisionalization in the esthetic zone were consecutively recruited. Restoration -based treatment planning was performed applying a fully digital workflow including the fabrication of a prefabricated definitive monolithic zirconia crown pr ior to the surgery. Tooth extraction and guided surgery was performed in all patients and immediate placement and loading was carried out with the prefabricated definitive restoration on the day of surgery. The restoration was evaluated by the patients and by two experienced and calibrated clinicians using modi fied USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria to evaluate the treatment outcome.
RESULTS •
In 9 out of 12 patients, the crowns were inserted at the same visit without any adjustments.
•
Two crowns required minor adjustment -one at the incisal edge position and another at the distal contact area. These were delivered at the same clinical visit after the necessary adjustments had been made.
•
One crown showed a misfit and was in need of a new scan and an adjustment in the laboratory prior to insertion at the next visit on the following day.
•
Patient satisfaction was 9.41 ± 0.49 at baseline and 9.6 ± 0.47 at the 6 up.
•
Clinical outcomes in terms of periimplant soft tissue health, interdental papillae levels, and midfacial mucosal levels were assessed at the time of implant placement (baseline) and 6 months postoperatively . All patients reported highly satisfactory results for all the parameters assessed.
-month follow -
CONCLUSIONS Digitally driven immediate implant placement and loading with prefabricated definitive restorations in the esthetic zone may serve as a valid clinical protocol. However, further randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to prove the efficacy of this protocol. Adapted from Mohit Kheur et al., Int J Esthet Dent. 2026 Aug 17;21(3):294 -309 ., for more info about this publication, click HERE
Page | 5
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2026 Aug;12(4):e70414
Osteoimmunomodulatory Effects of Zirconia -Modified Titanium: Promoting Macrophage Activation and Osteoblast Mineralization at the Dental Implant Interface Ottavia Cannatella, Biagio Matera, Francesca Rossi, Giovanni Passeri, Simone Lumetti, Ludovica Parisi, Benedetta Ghezzi
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The aim of this study was to evaluate how the Ti-Zr physicochemical characteristics modulate macrophage behavior and how macrophage -derived signals affect osteoblast mineralization, a key determinant of successful clinical outcomes. Human monocytes were differentiated into pro inflammatory (M1) or ant i-inflammatory (M2) macrophages on hydrophobic and hydrophilic titanium (P, SLA/modSLA) or zirconia -enriched titanium (R/modR) surfaces. Macrophage polarization was assessed by Real Time -PCR, fluorescent immunoassays, and Luminex analysis of pro -/anti infl ammatory cytokines and bone -related markers. Conditioned media from M1/M2 macrophages cultured on each surface were used to culture human osteoblast -like cells, and their differentiation and mineralization were evaluated by gene expression analysis and Ali zarin Red staining.
RESULTS •
The obtained results indicate that surface chemical composition, rather than hydrophilicity, is the main driver of early macrophage phenotype modulation.
•
Zirconia incorporation induced effects comparable to titanium on macrophage activation while increasing transcription of pro - and anti -inflammatory genes.
•
Moreover, zirconia enhanced M1 activation and the release of angiogenic and osteogenic mediators, including VEGF and OPN.
•
These effects contribute to an immune microenvironment favorable to bone formation by promoting a balanced macrophage response.
•
Consistently, zirconia -enriched surfaces enhanced osteoblastic differentiation and mineralization, regardless of hydrophilic differences compared with conventional titanium surfaces.
CONCLUSIONS The data emphasize the critical role of early M1 macrophage activity controlling the release of specific cytokines, supporting the hypothesis that the use of titanium/zirconia alloys may provide an osteoiummunomodulatory advantage that may contrast peri -implant bone loss. Adapted from Ottavia Cannatella et al., Clin Exp Dent Res. 2026 Aug;12(4):e70414 , for more info about this publication, click HERE
Page | 6
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2026 Aug;28(4):e70171.
Long -Term Incidence of Peri -Implant Conditions: 25 -Year Results of The Bernese Prospective Cohort Study. Emilio Couso -Queiruga, Andrea Roccuzzo, Clemens Raabe, Vivianne Chappuis, Daniel Buser, Manrique Fonseca, Giovanni E Salvi
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The aim of this study was to assess 25 -year implant survival, success rates, peri -implant conditions, and variables influencing peri -implant mucositis (PM), peri -implantitis (PI), and loss of osseointegration. Partially edentulous patients rehabilitated with tissue -level implant -sup ported prostheses were evaluated. Calibrated examiners performed clinical and radiographic assessments, and potential variables for PM and PI were analyzed at the final follow -up.
RESULTS •
At the 10 - and 25 -year follow -ups, 303 and 159 patients with 511 and 252 implants, respectively, were included.
•
Implant failure (IF) was 1.2% at 10 years and 6.0% at 25 years, with implant survival rates of 98.8% and 94.0%, respectively (p < 0.001). Implant success rates ranged from 97.0% at 10 years to 90.8% at 25 years (p < 0.001). IF due to loss of osseointegration increased from 0.6% to 3.6% at the implant level and from 1.0% to 2.5% at the patient level, and were located only in premolar or molar sites.
•
At implant level, peri -implant health (PH) was 14.4% at 10 and 25 years (p = 1.00), while PM decreased from 82.1% to 76.5% (p = 0.08), and PI increased from 3.5% to 9.1% (p = 0.001).
•
At patient level, PH remained stable between 10 and 25 years, ranging from 10.0% to 10.3% (p = 0.94), while PM decreased from 80.0% to 71.6% (p = 0.06), and PI increased from 10.0% to 18.1% (p = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, history of periodontitis (OR = 3.87) and facial mucosal thickness (OR = 0.42) were associated with PM, whereas facial mucosal thickness was associated with PI
CONCLUSIONS After 25 years, implant survival and success exceeded 90%. Loss of osseointegration accounted for approximately 60% of IF. While PI and IF increased over time, PM decreased but remained prevalent.
Adapted from Emilio Couso -Queiruga et al., Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2026 Aug;28(4):e70171. publication, click HERE
Page | 7
, for more info about this
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2026 Oct;37(10):1197 -1207
Monolithic Zirconia Versus Porcelain -Fused -to-Metal Implant Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Posterior Region: 3 -Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Aspasia Pachiou, Raphael Singh, Ronald E Jung, Marc Balmer, Goran I Benic, Alexis Ioannidis
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The aim of this study was to compare the clinical, biological, and technical outcomes of posterior three unit implant -supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated from monolithic zirconia (MonoZR) or porcelain -fused -to-metal (PFM). In this prospective randomized controlled tri al, partially edentulous patients requiring a posterior three -unit iFDP supported by two implants were randomly assigned to MonoZR or PFM iFDPs. The primary outcome was ceramic fracture. Secondary outcomes included prosthesis survival, complication -free su rvival, marginal bone level (MBL) changes, peri -implant clinical parameters, and USPHS ratings. Follow -up examinations were performed at 1 and 3 years.
RESULTS •
Fifty -five patients received iFDPs at baseline (MonoZR: n = 28; PFM: n = 27), and 45 completed the 3 -year follow -up.
•
Two prosthesis failures occurred, one in each group, both associated with implant loss, with no difference in survival between groups (p = 1.00).
•
Veneering ceramic chipping occurred only in the PFM group (3/23; 13%) and not in the MonoZR group (0/22) (p = 0.11).
•
Complication -free survival, peri -implant clinical parameters, and MBL changes did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05).
•
Plaque index and bleeding on probing increased over time, while probing depth and MBL remained stable.
•
Both groups showed high clinical acceptability according to USPHS criteria.
CONCLUSIONS Both MonoZR and PFM posterior three -unit iFDPs demonstrated high survival and favorable biological outcomes after 3 years. MonoZR showed no chipping events and may represent a promising alternative to PFM for posterior implant -supported restorations. Adapted from Aspasia Pachiou et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2026 Oct;37(10):1197 -1207., for more info about this publication, click HERE
Page | 8
SCIENTIFIC HIGHLIGHTS
ISSUE5 | 2026
REFERENCES Supriya Ebenezer et al ., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2026 Sep 24 | Mirela Bergmann Carlucci
et al., Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2026 Aug 26;0(0):1 -23 |Mohit Kheur et al., Int J Esthet Dent. 2026 Aug 17;21(3):294 -309 | Ottavia Cannatella et al., Dent Res. 2026 Aug;12(4):e70414 |
Emilio Couso -Queiruga et al.,
Clin Exp
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2026 Aug;28(4):e70171 |
Aspasia Pachiou et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2026 Oct;37(10):1197 -1207 |source: www.pubmed.gov | Dr. Marcin Maj holds
Page | 9
SH_0 5_26
the position of Head of Global Scientific Affairs at Institute Straumann in Basel, Switzerland