Jul 2026· Revista de Estudos Interdisciplinares· 0 citations
TL;DR
The available evidence indicates that this technique represents a promising alternative for optimizing implant site preparation and promoting greater primary stability, particularly in low-density bone, however, prospective long-term clinical studies are still required to establish its indications, limitations, and clinical outcomes.
Abstract
The predictability of treatments with osseointegrated implants is directly related to the achievement of adequate primary stability, particularly in regions with low bone density. In this context, the osseodensification technique emerged as an alternative to conventional implant site preparation protocols, proposing the preservation and compaction of bone tissue during osteotomy through the use of Densah® burs, developed by Versah®. Unlike conventional burs, which promote bone tissue removal, osseodensification is based on controlled plastic deformation of bone, favoring trabecular compaction, autogenous bone particle translocation, and increased peri-implant bone density. These biomechanical changes have been associated with increased insertion torque, primary stability, and bone-to-implant contact, expanding clinical possibilities, particularly in areas with low bone density, such as the posterior maxilla. The aim of this narrative review was to gather and analyze the main scientific evidence regarding the use of the Densah® bur system, addressing its biological and biomechanical principles, clinical applications, advantages, limitations, and future perspectives in Implant Dentistry. For the development of this review, indexed scientific articles and classic studies investigating the osseodensification technique were consulted, with emphasis on experimental research, clinical studies, and literature reviews. The available evidence indicates that this technique represents a promising alternative for optimizing implant site preparation and promoting greater primary stability, particularly in low-density bone. However, prospective long-term clinical studies are still required to establish its indications, limitations, and clinical outcomes.
Neither the choice of drilling technique nor the implant macrogeometry significantly influences insertion torque or stability levels in regions of low bone density in this randomized controlled clinical study.
Worood A Akram, S. Bede· The Journal of craniofacial...· 0 citations
The rehabilitation of edentulous areas in the anterior maxillary region has a significant impact on esthetics, masticatory physiology, and patients' quality of life. In this context, owing to the high biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and optical characteristics of metal-free ceramic restorations, their combination with osseointegrated implants has been established as a contemporary therapeutic option. This study aims to report a clinical case of oral rehabilitation using an implant associated with zirconia crowns, highlighting the treatment planning and clinical management adopted. Planning included a diagnostic wax-up and a bis-acrylic resin mock-up for prior esthetic and functional analysis, followed by the placement of an implant in the region of tooth 21. Aiming for greater smile harmony, re-anatomization of the maxillary canines was performed with the aid of a silicone guide. After the healing and osseointegration period, tooth preparation, coping try-in, and installation of the zirconia crowns were carried out. It is concluded that the combination of implant and zirconia crowns provided a satisfactory esthetic and functional outcome, confirming metal-free ceramic material as an effective alternative for smile restoration.
Viviane Afonso Mergulhão, Sandrine Beatriz da Silva Correia, Gabriel N. Desouza et al.· Revista ft· 0 citations
The use of sequential osseodensification protocols yielded superior mechanical stability parameters, specifically in IT and RT, in synthetic (polyurethane) bone models, but improvements in ISQ were predominantly noted in the denser type III model.
Silvio Yoshiaki Okagawa, Alex Sandro de Souza, Paulo Sérgio Perri de Carvalho et al.· International Journal of Den...· 0 citations
Introduction
Dental implant therapy has become a predictable and widely accepted treatment modality for the restoration of oral function and aesthetics. Despite high long-term survival rates, biological complications such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis remain significant challenges that may compromise implant stability and patient quality of life. Implant surface characteristics play a crucial role in both osseointegration and microbial colonization, creating a complex balance between enhanced bone integration and resistance to biofilm formation. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current strategies in dental implant surface engineering with regard to their dual role in promoting osseointegration and preventing peri-implant diseases.
Materials and Methods
Literature published between 2020 and 2025 was analyzed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases.
Results
The review discusses the influence of surface topography, roughness, chemistry, and wettability on biological responses at the implant interface. Furthermore, contemporary modification strategies, including bioactive ceramic coatings, ion and nanoparticle incorporation, nanotopography, anodization, and laser surface treatments, are critically evaluated. Emerging multifunctional approaches combining osteogenic and antimicrobial properties are also highlighted.
Conclusions
Current evidence suggests that no single surface modification fully optimizes both osseointegration and bacterial resistance. However, advanced nanostructured and laser-modified surfaces demonstrate promising potential for improving long-term implant performance. Future progress in implantology will likely depend on integrating biomaterial innovations with individualized clinical approaches and long-term evidence-based evaluation.
Aleksandra Jędras, Gabriela Czerepak, Weronika Pociask et al.· Quality in Sport· 0 citations
ABSTRACT Short implants represent a viable approach for the rehabilitation of areas with severe bone resorption, particularly in the posterior regions of the mandible and maxilla, as a minimally invasive alternative. The objective of this review was to analyze the available evidence on the use of short implants compared to long implants placed after bone reconstruction procedures, discussing their indications, advantages, and limitations. Searches were conducted in the PubMed, SciELO, and Lilacs databases using descriptors related to short implants and atrophic ridges, resulting in the selection of 55 articles. Evidence indicates that short implants exhibit survival rates comparable to conventional implants, with a lower incidence of surgical complications, reduced marginal bone loss, decreased postoperative morbidity, shorter surgical time, and lower costs. Despite potential biomechanical limitations associated with the reduced bone-implant contact area and increased crown-to-implant ratio, advances in implant design, microtopography, and surgical protocols have promoted osseointegration and improved load distribution, ensuring predictable clinical outcomes. Thus, short implants are established as a safe and effective strategy for the rehabilitation of atrophic ridges, provided they are applied following individualized planning that considers the patient’s anatomical, prosthetic, and systemic factors.
B. Rangel, Marco Antonio Rodríguez Ramos, K. Neppelenbroek et al.· RGO: Revista Gaúcha de Odont...· 0 citations
Dental implant placement requires prerequisites, such as the quality and quantity of the available bone. Oral and maxillofacial fibro-osseous lesions (FOLs) are a group of intraosseous benign lesions, consisting of cemento-osseous dysplasia (COD), fibrous dysplasia (FD), and cemento-ossifying fibroma (COF), characterized by progressive replacement of normal bone tissue by fibrous connective tissue comprising varying amounts of mineralized substances, and consequently, the quality of the bone tissue. The aim of this study is to provide information for clinicians on the risks of implant insertion into these types of lesions. The ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched based on the following PICO: The PICO question of the present study is as follows: What are the failure rates and treatment plan options (O) of implant placement (I) in patients with a fibro-osseous lesion who need an implant treatment at the site of the lesion (P)? Of the 301 identified studies, 39 eligible studies (16 on COD, 14 on FD, and nine on COF) were included in the present systematic review. Overall, 40 and 56 implants were placed in healthy areas near the lesions, in the grafted tissues placed in the location of the removed lesions, or within the COD and FD lesions, respectively. All of the 29 implants in the group of COF lesions were placed in the healed or grafted tissue, replacing the resected COF-affected areas. The failure rate of implants placed in the studies investigating COD, FD, and COF lesions were 22.50%, 7.14%, and 10.34%, respectively. Treatment options for implant placement in COD and FD lesions were reported as removing the lesion and waiting for the bone to be healed (with or without grafting), placing implant in the healthy bone near the lesion, or placing the implant embedded in the lesion. However, all of COF lesions were removed (mostly with resection) and dental implants were placed in the grafted tissue. Considering the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that it would be more appropriate to avoid placing dental implants into the COD and FD lesions and inserting the implants in the surrounding healthy bone, healed, or grafted bone tissues are preferred. However, due to the neoplastic nature of COF removing the lesions prior to the implant insertion is crucial.
F. Atarbashi-Moghadam, Amirali Farahani Afsaryeh, S. Atarbashi-Moghadam et al.· Maxillofacial plastic and re...· 0 citations