Immediately versus early placed bone-level-tapered implants supporting all-ceramic crowns on titanium base abutments: 1-year radiographic and pink esthetic outcomes of a multicenter pilot RCT

OBJECTIVES

Aim of this study was to assess survival rates, radiographic, and pink esthetic outcomes of a bone-level-tapered (BLT) implant following immediate or early implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients in need of tooth extraction and one implant in the anterior or premolar area were recruited in five centers. Patients were randomly assigned to the immediate or early placement protocol. Implants were restored with all-ceramic crowns cemented to titanium-base-abutments. Radiographic bone levels, implant stability quotient (ISQ), and pink esthetic outcomes were assessed. Data were analyzed descriptively. Level of significance was set at 0.05. Differences between groups were tested using Wilcoxon-signed-rank and Mann-Whitney-U test as nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients received 60 BLT implants (Institut Straumann). At 12-months, 59 implants (98.3%) were osseointegrated. The mean distance from implant shoulder to first bone-to-implant contact was 0.15 ± 0.59 mm without significant differences between the groups. Median ISQ values increased from 75.5 to 78.5. A mean buccal recession of 0.1 ± 0.70 mm occurred with no difference between groups. The mean papilla height gain in both groups was 0.5 ± 1.47 mm mesially and 0.4 ± 1.36 mm distally.

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year, immediately and early placed BLT implants exhibit similar bone level changes, ISQ values, and pink esthetic outcomes.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The present research contributes to the knowledge on clinical outcomes of immediately and early placed BLT implants restored with buccally microveneered ceramic single crowns out of two different ceramic materials. The research shows that similar esthetic and radiographic outcomes can be reached by means of immediate implant placement compared to the conventional early placement protocol. The improvement of esthetic soft-tissue parameters over time was shown for both implant placement protocols.

Effect of Different Timings of Implant Insertion on the Bone Remodeling Volume around Patients' Maxillary Single Implants: A 2-3 Years Follow-Up

Background: To investigate the middle-term effect on bone remodeling of different timings for different implant placement (immediate versus delayed). Methods: Patients with an anterior maxillary failing tooth were treated by single-crown supported by dental implant. Subjects were retrospectively analyzed for 3 years and assigned to one of two predictor groups: nine immediate versus 10 delayed implant placement (1-2 months after tooth extraction). The crestal bone loss around dental implants was measured with the cone beam computerized tomography by fusing pre-operative and post-operative data. Results: The percentage of volume loss registered at 1-year follow-up (%ΔV) was of 7.5% for the immediate group, which was significantly lower (p-values ≤ 0.0002) than the loss of 24.2% for the delayed group. At 3 years, there was a significant difference (p-values = 0.0291) between the two groups, respectively, with a volume loss of 14.6% and 27.1%. When different times were compared, the percentage of the volume loss for the immediate group was different (p-value = 0.0366) between the first and third year (7.5% and 14.6%, respectively). For the delayed group, no significant difference was registered between the 1- and 3-year follow-up. Conclusions: The bone loss around dental implant-supported single-crown with different timing of insertion appeared higher for the delayed group than the immediate group.

Inappropriate Socket Shield Protocol as a Probable Cause of Peri-Implant Bone Resorption: A Case Report

Alveolar ridge remodeling post-extraction is a well-documented process. Alveolar bone is in a continuous state of remodeling even after implant placement, and this leads to changes in the contour of the peri-implant tissues over the years. A vast number of procedures have been described in literature to address and correct this resorption including procedures like socket grafting, dual zone grafting, socket shield (partial extraction therapy) and many more. Socket shield (partial extraction therapy) is a relatively new procedure described in the literature. This technique aims to try and slow down this remodeling and maintain the peri-implant tissues in a state near normalcy. The aim of this article is to assess a case where the possible cause of buccal bone loss around an integrated implant was an inappropriately prepared socket shield. It is recommended that an evidence-based consensus be put forth on both case selection and execution to minimize inappropriate execution of this technique by the average clinician.

Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes

Background

This study investigated objective and patient-reported esthetic outcomes and their correlation for single-tooth implant restorations in the maxillary anterior region.

Methods

Nineteen patients were included. Gingival biotypes and smile lines were evaluated. Esthetic evaluation was performed according to the pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES). Patients rated their satisfaction regarding the implant treatment using a subjective outcome questionnaire and a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

The mean PES and WES were 10.7 (range 5–13, SD ± 2.24) and 8.6 (range 8–10, SD ± 0.60), respectively. The overall mean VAS was 8.54 ± 0.36 (range 3.8–9.8). No significant correlation was found between VAS and PES or WES (p = 0.475, p = 0.984, respectively). PES and WES scores for gingival biotypes failed to show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.701, p = 0.831). There was a significant negative correlation between the smile line and VAS; indicating that patients with lower smile lines expressed higher patient satisfaction (p = .001).

Conclusions

Professionally reported esthetic outcomes (PES and WES results) may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. Smile line is a significant factor in patient satisfaction, which should be evaluated thoroughly prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla.

Evaluation of the papilla level adjacent to implants placed in fresh, healing or healed sites: A systematic review

A better understanding of factors that can lead to papilla formation or recession, such as the type of site where the implant was placed, is of fundamental importance to the aesthetic success of the rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature regarding the formation or recession of papilla adjacent to implants placed in fresh, healing or healed sites. The protocol for this study was registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD 42016033784). An electronic search was performed by two independent reviewers who applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases from January 2005 up to February 2016. The initial screening yielded 1,065 articles, from which 15 were selected for a systematic review after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Nine studies compared fresh and healed sites, four studies compared healing and healed sites, one study compared fresh and healing sites, and one study analysed all three sites. The majority of studies identified by this systematic review showed no difference between groups after the longer follow-up period. The sites where the implants were placed did not have a long-term influence on papilla formation or recession.

Aesthetic outcome of immediately restored single implants placed in extraction sockets and healed sites of the anterior maxilla: a retrospective study on 103 patients with 3 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic outcome of single implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges of the anterior maxilla by means of the pink aesthetic score/white aesthetic score (PES/WES) index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data from 103 patients (43 males, 60 females) aged 24-65 years (mean age 41.4 ± 13.8 years) who had been successfully treated with a single implant in the anterior maxilla, in four different clinical centres. Forty-two patients (mean age 46.5 ± 15.1 years) were treated with a single implant in a fresh post-extraction socket (immediate implant treatment, IIT), while 61 patients (mean age 38.0 ± 11.8 years) were treated with a single implant in a healed site (conventional implant treatment, CIT). Two independent calibrated examiners applied the PES/WES index to the 103 single-tooth restorations, respectively 3 months and 3 years after implant placement.

RESULTS

A few biological (4.8%) and prosthetic (8.7%) complications were reported. Both IIT and CIT yielded satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. At the delivery of the final restoration, a PES/WES score of 16.6 ± 2.6 and 15.7 ± 3.0 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was not statistically significant. A higher decrease in the PES/WES score was observed with CIT over time. At 3 years, a PES/WES score of 16.4 ± 2.8 and 15.2 ± 3.3 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was statistically significant. IIT seemed to yield better aesthetic outcomes in young patients (≤30 years), with implants placed in central incisor/cuspid areas, in the presence of bone contouring.

CONCLUSIONS

Both immediate and conventional single-implant treatment in the anterior maxilla can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes, when performed by experienced clinicians in well-selected cases. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.