Peter Eickholz

Aim To assess the esthetic and clinical performance of a novel self‐tapping implant system for single‐tooth restorations in the esthetic zone after immediate placement and provisionalization. Materials and Methods This cross‐sectional study included 52 patients contributing a total of 52 immediately placed and restored implants with ≥12 months after functional loading, comparing two different implant systems: Straumann® BLX (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland; 25 patients) and Ankylos® (Dentsply Sirona, Hanau, Germany; 27 patients). As the primary outcome measure, peri‐implant tissue esthetics were assessed by means of pink esthetics score (PES) rated by three independent clinicians. Moreover, as secondary outcome measures, the peri‐implant tissue health was assessed by means of bleeding on probing, probing depth, and suppuration. Apart from that, the modified plaque index, keratinized mucosa width, and the presence of mucosal recessions were also assessed. When clinical signs suggested the possibility of peri‐implantitis, radiographs were indicated to assess progressive bone loss. Results The mean PES ratings were 12.10 ± 1.10 for Ankylos versus 11.2 ± 1.86 for BLX, both achieving good esthetic results without significant differences ( p = 0.143). There were no differences among most clinical parameters (plaque, bleeding on probing, probing depth, peri‐implant mucosal recession), although peri‐implant mucositis was present in one‐third of the cases. The inter‐rater agreement on esthetics was not significant ( p < 0.250). Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that the use of either BLX or Ankylos implant systems was associated to comparable peri‐implant health and good pink esthetic outcomes during immediate implantation and restoration protocols, for at least 12 months.

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the common practices of dental implant maintenance among dental hygiene professionals (DHP) in Israel (IL) and Germany (GE). Methods An online questionnaire was developed by the Periodontology Departments of Tel Aviv (IL) and Frankfurt University (GE) to address demographics, training, prevention and treatment of peri‐implant diseases. The questionnaire was distributed by DHP associations via social media. Results The responses of 376 DHPs (IL: 169; GE: 207) were analysed. Most participants were female (IL: 168/99%; GE: 203/98%), had received education (IL: 179/97%; GE: 207/97%) and were working in their home countries (IL: 182/99%; GE: 211/99%). Peri‐implant probing was not performed by 22% of DHPs in IL and 5% in GE. Of the DHPs who used probes, 49% used metal probes in IL, while 40% used plastic probes in GE ( p < 0.001). A majority of DHPs performed peri‐implant instrumentation (IL: 168/99%; GE: 190/92%). Most DHPs from IL did not use devices other than hand and/or sonic/ultrasonic instruments for peri‐implant cleaning (IL: 130/77%; GE 5/2%); in GE, the use of airflow (IL: 31/18%; GE: 199/96%) is popular ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Most DHPs in IL and GE perform peri‐implant probing and debridement. However, there are some distinct differences between the two countries regarding the choice of instruments and treatment regimens.