Minimizing the discrepancy between implant platform and alveolar bone for tilted implants with a sloped implant platform: A clinical report

Rehabilitation Using Implants with Sloped Platform Edge vs. Standard Platform with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform-SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration-GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and 0.008), and lower total OHIP-14 (p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4-4.0) mm and 2 (1.4-2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, <0.001). In the SLP group, more natural color and better texture of soft tissues were found (p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR.

Clinical Evidence on a Novel Macrohybrid Design Dental Implant with 12° Angled Platform: A Systematic Review

Background: Immediate implant placement with immediate esthetics has become a more common procedure over time, though ensuring good emergence of the axis of the implant has been a challenge. A novel macroimplant design with an angled platform (Co-Axis^®) has been developed to ensure exit of the head of the implant in the correct prosthetic position. A systematic literature review was carried to determine the survival rate and marginal bone loss associated with these implants. Material and Methods: An electronic and manual literature search was made in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The search strategy was limited to human studies, retrospective and prospective clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies reporting outcomes of a novel macrohybrid implant with a 12° angled implant connection. Results: Three articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in the analysis. The estimated success rate was 95.9%. The global marginal bone loss was estimated to be −0.17 ± 0.58 mm in an environment characterized by great heterogeneity (I² = 99%). The estimated mean implant stability was 69.6 ± 0.92 (ISQ). As only two studies provided the required information, it was not possible to determine publication bias. Lastly, mean recession was estimated to be practically zero (0.06 ± 0.23 mm), with great heterogeneity. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review, it can be affirmed that immediate implant treatment with Co-Axis^® implants shows a survival rate of 95.9% at one year of follow-up, with low marginal bone loss values, near-zero soft tissue recession, and favorable papilla index values. Nevertheless, the great heterogeneity of the data requires the findings to be interpreted with caution.