Aesthetic outcome of single-tooth implant restorations following early implant placement and guided bone regeneration: crown and soft tissue dimensions compared with contralateral teeth

Clinical outcomes of narrow- and regular-diameter implants with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla, with implant survival rate (ISR) as the primary outcome. Additionally, secondary outcomes such as peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), mechanical complications, and biological complications were also considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thorough literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing outcomes of NDIs and RDIs with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla published up to February 2024. Only studies with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months were selected for analysis. Meta-analysis was performed if at least two articles with similar characteristics were available.

RESULTS

Of the 288 articles initially considered, 5 were included in the analysis, involving 282 NDIs and 100 RDIs. At the 36-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences in ISR, which ranged 93.8-100% for NDIs and were 100% for RDIs, were observed between the two groups (relative risk, 0.989; 95% confidence interval, 0.839-1.165; p = 0.896). Similarly, MBL and PPD did not differ significantly between the two groups. Soft tissue dehiscence was the most common complication found in RDIs.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that NDIs yield clinical outcomes similar to those of RDIs with bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla over a 36-month follow-up period.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Considering the similar clinical outcomes, the shortened treatment duration and more rapid esthetic improvement associated with NDIs may render them preferrable to RDIs with bone augmentation, particularly in this esthetic zone.

Beyond Tissue replacement: The Emerging role of smart implants in healthcare

Smart implants are increasingly used to treat various diseases, track patient status, and restore tissue and organ function. These devices support internal organs, actively stimulate nerves, and monitor essential functions. With continuous monitoring or stimulation, patient observation quality and subsequent treatment can be improved. Additionally, using biodegradable and entirely excreted implant materials eliminates the need for surgical removal, providing a patient-friendly solution. In this review, we classify smart implants and discuss the latest prototypes, materials, and technologies employed in their creation. Our focus lies in exploring medical devices beyond replacing an organ or tissue and incorporating new functionality through sensors and electronic circuits. We also examine the advantages, opportunities, and challenges of creating implantable devices that preserve all critical functions. By presenting an in-depth overview of the current state-of-the-art smart implants, we shed light on persistent issues and limitations while discussing potential avenues for future advancements in materials used for these devices.

CAD/CAM Abutments in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Soft Tissue Stability

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing customized abutments are increasingly used in everyday clinical practice. Nevertheless, solid scientific evidence is currently lacking regarding their potential advantages in terms of soft tissue stability. The main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the soft tissue outcomes of prefabricated versus customized (CAD/CAM) abutments. The present review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020161875) and the protocol was developed according to the PRISMA statement. An electronic search was performed on three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central) up to May 2023. Data extraction was followed by qualitative and quantitative analysis of the included studies. Three randomized controlled clinical trials and three controlled clinical trials (number of patients = 230; number of dental implants = 230) with a follow-up of between 12 and 36 months were included. No significant differences were observed between prefabricated versus customized (CAD/CAM) abutments regarding midfacial mucosal recession, interproximal papillae and pink aesthetic score (PES) after 12 months. Conclusion: The potential benefits of CAD/CAM abutments on soft tissues should be better clarified in future investigations. The usage of customized CAD/CAM abutments in everyday clinical practice should be based on a careful case-by-case evaluation (CRD42020161875).

Histologic Evaluation of Soft Tissues around Dental Implant Abutments: A Narrative Review

The basis for dental implant success comes not only with the titanium implant osseointegration but also depends on other factors such as the development of a soft tissue barrier, which protects the peri-implant bone from the oral environment. The characteristics of surfaces in contact with peri-implant soft tissues may affect the capacity of peri-implant mucosal cells to create a tight seal around the implant, thus influencing long-term implant success. Many histological studies on animals have been conducted on different materials to better understand their influence on peri-implant soft tissues, with the limitation that results from animal studies cannot be fully translated in humans. The aim of this review paper was to analyze the literature focusing on histological clinical studies in humans which have examined different materials or different surface treatments and their effects on peri-implant soft tissues. The research was conducted according to the following PICO question: “Do different implant/abutment materials affect peri-implant soft tissues adhesion and health?”. Nine articles were analyzed in this review. The results of this review show the influence of different abutment materials on the peri-implant soft tissues, and the need of further research regarding the effect that abutment materials, surface treatments, and surface properties have on soft tissues.

A Novel Approach to Immediate Implants: The CastleWall Surgical Technique

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the volumetric stability around immediate implants, in which a 360-degree socket-shield was retained using the CastleWall Surgical Technique (CWST). Material and methods: This retrospective study examined the results of the CWST used for 25 consecutive patients, involving 31 immediate implants. Silicone impressions taken prior to extraction, and at a review appointment were converted to STL files and compared. The median follow-up time was 14.2 ± 5.5 months. Volumetric changes and gingival recession on both buccal and lingual sites were measured. Papillary height changes were also evaluated from available photographs taken before and after treatment. Patients in the study completed a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for evaluation of post-operative discomfort and overall satisfaction with this procedure. Results: All implants integrated successfully without complications. Mean loss of buccal and lingual tissue was 0.30 ± 0.32 mm and 0.17 ± 0.27 mm, respectively. Mean recession at the mid-buccal and mid-lingual gingival margin was 0.66 ± 0.64 mm and 0.87 ± 0.84 mm, respectively. Mean recession of the mesial and distal papilla was 0.26 ± 0.55 mm and 0.29 ± 0.52 mm, respectively. Patients reported 97.74 ± 5.60% satisfaction with this procedure using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), with minimal post-operative discomfort. Conclusions: The results of this study showed excellent soft tissue stability and aesthetics were achieved using the CWST, with minimal postoperative pain. The other main advantage of retaining a 360-degree socket-shield, is there is more available surface area to lock the implant to the shield to prevent shield migration over time.

Orchestrating soft tissue integration at the transmucosal region of titanium implants

Osseointegration at the bone-implant interface and soft tissue integration (STI) at the trans-mucosal region are crucial for the long-term success of dental implants, especially in compromised patient conditions. The STI quality of conventional smooth and bio-inert titanium-based implants is inferior to that of natural tissue (i.e. teeth), and hence various surface modifications have been suggested. This review article compares and contrasts the various modification strategies (physical, chemical and biological) utilized to enhance STI of Ti implants. It also details the STI challenges associated with conventional Ti-based implants, current surface modification strategies and cutting-edge nano-engineering solutions. The topographical, biological and therapeutic advances achievable via electrochemically anodized Ti implants with TiO₂ nanotubes/nanopores are highlighted. Finally, the status and future directions of such nano-engineered implants is discussed, with emphasis on bridging the gap between research and clinical translation.

Race to invade: Understanding soft tissue integration at the transmucosal region of titanium dental implants

OBJECTIVES

The success of a dental implant system not only depends on appropriate osseointegration at the bone-implant interface, but also on robust soft-tissue integration (STI)/muco-integration at the transmucosal region. However, numerous studies have reported that the STI quality of conventional smooth and bio-inert titanium-based transmucosal components is significantly inferior to that of natural teeth, which may compromise the long-term success of implant restorations. In this review article, we discuss the structural and histological characteristics of peri-implant tissues; compare the roles of various cells residing in the transmucosal region and explore the material-based challenges that must be addressed to achieve early establishment and long-term maintenance of STI.

METHODS

This extensive review article critically compares and contrasts the findings from articles published in the domain of 'soft-tissue integration around Ti dental implants'.

RESULTS

Histological characteristics, including poorer epithelial attachment and absence of direct collagen-implant/abutment integration, are responsible for the inferior STI strength around dental implants/abutments. Furthermore, various cellular functions during STI establishment and maturation at the abutment-mucosa interface must be modulated to achieve early STI. Moreover, we discuss and detail the challenges of achieving robust STI, including the presence of oral bacterial milieu, as well as material and corrosion related issues. Finally, research challenges towards achieving and maintaining robust STI are discussed, targeting the future directions to enhance the long-term survival of implant restorations.

SIGNIFICANCE

Based on its histological characteristics, STI on current implant/abutment surfaces is suboptimal compared to the periodontal attachment found at teeth, making implants potentially more susceptible to disease initiation and progression. To obtain stable STI at the trasmucosal region, it is essential for future studies to design customized implant systems, with enhanced surface bioactivity and tailorable therapeutic capacity, which can improve the long-term success of implant restorations, especially in compromised conditions.

The peri-implant phenotype and implant esthetic complications. Contemporary overview

OBJECTIVE

To provide a contemporary and comprehensive overview of the hard and soft tissue biological structures surrounding an osseointegrated dental implant (peri-implant referred to as the peri-implant phenotype), in the context of peri-implant esthetic complications.

OVERVIEW

The individual components of the peri-implant phenotype (keratinized mucosa width, mucosal thickness, supracrestal tissue height, and the peri-implant buccal bone) have been linked to different aspects of implant esthetics, as well as health-related aspects. At the time of implant therapy, respecting the biology of the peri-implant hard and soft tissues, and anticipating their remodeling patterns can alleviate future esthetic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

While the current literature may not allow for a point-by-point evidence based-recommendation for the required amount of each peri-implant structure, bearing in mind the proposed values for the components of the peri-implant phenotype, at the time of and prior to implant therapy can lead to more predictable treatment outcomes, and the avoidance of esthetic complications.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Knowledge of hard and soft tissue components surrounding and osseointegrated dental implant, and their underlying biological remodeling process is crucial for carrying out a successful therapy and alleviating possible future esthetic challenges.

Socket preservation with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and platelet-rich fibrin for implant site development: A randomized controlled trial

Aim:

This in vivo study compared clinical, histological, and radiological differences in bone formation in human extraction sockets grafted with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), with nongrafted sockets and bone–implant contact (BIC) at 3 and 6 months after implant placement.

Settings and Design:

Randomised controlled trial.

Materials and Methods:

The study comprised thirty posterior teeth sockets in either arch in patients ranging from 25 to 60 years. The patients were divided into two equal groups – Group I: control group wherein no graft was placed and the extraction socket was left to heal normally and Group II: test group in which DFDBA and PRF were placed after extraction. 12–16 weeks after extraction, a trephine biopsy was done just prior to implant placement, followed by implant placement. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at 3 and 6 months after implant placement was done to assess BIC.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Descriptive and Inferential statistical analysis was done. Parametric test: Independent t-test was used for intergroup analysis and dependent t-test for intra-group analysis.

Results:

Lower buccal bone levels were seen in the control group versus test group at all intervals though moderately significant. Lingual bone levels significantly reduced at all the three intervals for the control group as compared to the test group. Ridge width in both groups reduced in a time span of 6–7 months without any significant difference. Better bone conversion was noted in the preserved sockets. The preserved sockets also showed better BIC 3 months after implant placement and loading.

Conclusion:

Indigenously developed DFDBA material shows promising results as an osteoinductive material.

Reproducibility and validity of anterior implant esthetic indices: A review

Background:

The purpose of this review was to narrate about the reproducibility and validity of different indices evaluating esthetic aspects in anterior single implant-supported restorations.

Materials and Methods:

An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases was performed using the keywords “dental implants,” “anterior esthetics,” “esthetic score,” and “esthetic index.” Besides, a manual search of dental implant journals was carried out.

Results:

The electronic search revealed 932 titles. After further review, 14 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, interventions, and parameters used for assessment of esthetics, no meta-analysis could be performed.

Conclusion:

Many indices have been proposed for the evaluation of the esthetic aspects of single implant-supported reconstructions in the anterior maxilla. All of them have some advantages and drawbacks that this review pointed out. The evidence level of studies used for the validation of these indices is poor. It is necessary to achieve a consensus on the tools for assessment of the esthetic aspect and perform evidence-based studies to validate an appropriate index.

Esthetic assessments in implant dentistry: objective and subjective criteria for clinicians and patients

In recent years the scientific community has shown a clear interest in the esthetic outcome of implant treatment. The present paper provides an overview of the esthetic ratings that have been used in implant dentistry. A distinction can be made between objective evaluations by clinicians and subjective evaluations by patients. The former mainly include: midfacial and interproximal soft-tissue levels; two-dimensional/three-dimensional soft-tissue alterations; assessment of the color match between the natural dentition, on the one hand, and the peri-implant tissues and the reconstruction, on the other hand; and ordinal indices, such as the pink and white esthetic score. Patient's needs and judgment may differ from objective indicators of implant success and esthetics. As a result, assessing treatment on the basis of patient-reported outcomes measures should be considered important. Validated questionnaires have been used that mainly assess the impact of oral health on the overall well-being of individuals. The esthetic judgment of patients is usually based on nonstandardized questions with varying scoring methods, including visual analog scales, Likert and other category scales and open questions. The heterogeneity in scoring systems between studies may compromise proper comparison of objective and subjective esthetic outcomes between studies and therapeutic concepts.

Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late?

Implant placement in post-extraction sites of single teeth in the esthetic zone has been a topic of great interest in the field of implant dentistry since 1990. Triggered by the development of guided bone regeneration, the concept of immediate implant placement became quite popular in the 1990s. In the past 12 years, however, the dental community has begun to focus increasingly on the esthetic outcomes of post-extraction implant placement and several studies indicated a significant risk for the development of mucosal recessions with immediate implants. Parallel with this, significant progress has been made in the understanding of tissue biology in terms of hard and soft tissue alterations post extraction, based on preclinical, clinical and radiological studies. This knowledge has helped better to understand the etiology of these esthetic complications with immediate implant placement. The present review first analyzes the various phases of the development of therapeutic strategies over the years for post-extraction implant placement in single tooth sites in the esthetic zone. It presents the current knowledge concerning the terminology with immediate, early and late implant placement, the risk factors for the development of esthetic complications, and the selection criteria for the various treatment options. In the second part, clinical recommendations are given, since a clinician active in this field of implant therapy can use all treatment options depending on the preoperative analysis including a 3D cone beam computed tomography. The selection criteria for all four treatment options are presented and documented with typical case reports to illustrate the current treatment approaches applied in daily practice.

Clinician assessments and patient perspectives of single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Esthetic outcomes associated with implant dentistry are important to both clinicians and patients. However, esthetic satisfaction may vary between the 2 groups. In order to evaluate the current publications relating to this topic, the following focused question was developed, "what are the quantitative and qualitative differences between clinician evaluations and patient perspectives in the assessment of single-tooth implant outcomes in the esthetic zone?"

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify differences in esthetic satisfaction between clinicians and patients when evaluating single-tooth implant-supported restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search of the Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2000 to 2014) was performed. The search was supplemented by a manual search of specific journals. A quality assessment of full-text articles was performed according to Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for risk of bias assessment. Information regarding outcomes was collected and compared.

RESULTS

The search term combinations identified 555 titles. Subsequent to further review, 11 publications, including 2 randomized controlled trials, were selected for inclusion. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, study interventions, and esthetic assessment methods, no meta-analysis was performed. The clinicians identified a satisfactory outcome in 51% to 100% for peri-implant soft tissue and 62% to 90% for implant restorations. Patients showed a mean range score of 43% to 93% for peri-implant soft tissue and 81% to 96% for implant restorations. The visual analog scale score of the dentists was always lower than that of the patients. The review identified correlations between subjective and objective assessments for the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Index (PI), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and the modified (mod-ICAI) indices.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are more critical of esthetic outcomes than patients. The PES and the PI correlated with the patients' responses concerning the peri-implant soft tissue. The ICAI and the mod-ICAI showed a correlation of both the peri-implant mucosa and implant-supported crown satisfaction. Thus, a comprehensive and practical index should be developed to assess the esthetic outcomes for single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone.

The influence of professional competence on the inter- and intra-individual esthetic evaluation of implant-supported crowns in the anterior maxilla

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of the influence of professional competence on esthetic predictability of implant-supported crowns in the anterior maxilla and identification of objective factors allowing predictable planning for esthetic results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with 82 implants in the esthetic zone were included in this study. Width of keratinized mucosa, biotype, recessions, and papilla index according to Jemt as well as radiological bone loss were assessed. Study casts and photographs were obtained. Each patient as well as people with different level of expertise (laypersons, students and dentists) rated the esthetic satisfaction after final restoration on a scale (1-10). Correlations between esthetic assessments and previously documented clinical parameters were tested.

RESULTS

The study failed to show a significant relationship between the raters' level of dental expertise and their subjective esthetic evaluation. However, patients rated themselves much more favorable than the three evaluator groups did. A comparison of the clinical parameters with the esthetic evaluation revealed significantly more favorable ratings by the lay group in the presence of a wide attached gingiva (P = 0.021) than by the other groups and by the laypersons (P = 0.002), the dentists (P = 0.003), and students (P = 0.009) in the absence of recessions. The ratio of the implant crown length to the length of the contralateral crown had a negative effect on ratings for all three groups ([laypersons P < 0.001], [students P < 0.001] and [dentists P = 0.001]). The papilla index of the mesial papilla correlated significantly with laypersons' ratings (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Earlier investigations are confirmed. Width of keratinized mucosa is a risk factor for esthetic predictability of implant-supported crowns in the anterior maxilla in laypersons' ratings. Furthermore, there is an association between the discrepancy of lengths of implant-supported single crowns to their contralateral natural teeth and esthetic satisfaction for all expertise levels.

Radiological and Biological Assessment of Immediately Restored Anterior Maxillary Implants Combined with GBR and Free Connective Tissue Graft

OBJECTIVES

Radiologic and biologic assessment of immediately restored Implants combined with guided bone regeneration (GBR) and free connective tissue graft.

METHODS

1-4 year retrospective study involving 34 patients treated with maxillary immediately restored anterior single-implants. Soft tissue dimensions, radiographic bone loss, and biological and prosthetic complications were assessed.

RESULTS

During the mean follow up period of 29 months the study group presented a mean mesial bone loss of 1.10 ± 0.39 mm (range: 0.5-2.4 mm), and mean distal bone loss of 1.19 ± 0.41 mm (range: 0.4-2.1 mm). Mean periimplant probing depth of 3.49 mm (SD ± 1.06) and 2.35 (SD ± 0.52) for the contralateral tooth (highly significant p < 0.001). Bleeding on probing was present in 29.4% of the examined implant supported crown sites and 10.4% of the contralateral teeth (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior maxillary single-tooth replacement, using GBR and connective tissue graft according to the concept of immediate implant placement, and non-functional restoration is an accepted treatment modality achieving favorable peri-implant soft tissue condition.

Implant associated soft tissue defects in the anterior maxilla: a randomized control trial comparing subepithelial connective tissue graft and acellular dermal matrix allograft

INTRODUCTION

This randomized controlled clinical pilot trial compared the efficacy of 2 soft tissue grafting methods for correcting esthetic discrepancies associated with definitively restored implant crowns.

METHODS

Thirteen patients presenting with implants displaying recession, thin biotype, concavity defects, or a combination thereof associated with single crowned dental implants randomly received subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) in the control group (N = 7) or acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allografts in the test group (N = 6), both under coronally positioned flaps. Data regarding soft tissue, hard tissue, esthetics, and quality of life (QoL) parameters were collected over 6 months.

RESULTS

Both groups gained tissue thickness (SCTG: 63% and ADM: 105%), reduced concavity measures (SCTG: 82% and ADM: 96%), and improved recessions (SCTG: 40% and ADM: 28%) from baseline to 6 months. Clinicians determined improvement in esthetics for both groups (P = 0.001), unlike patients who did not change their esthetic ratings. No statistical differences were noted for QoL assessment; however, ADM subjects had more eventful wound healing (P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, both SCTG and ADM result in increased mucosal thickness, reduction in concavity dimensions, and have a potential for recession reduction on definitively restored dental implants.

Predictors of Alveolar Process Remodeling Following Ridge Preservation in High-Risk Patients

PURPOSE

(1) To clinically evaluate horizontal remodeling of the alveolar process (hard and soft tissues) following ridge preservation in high-risk patients and (2) to identify predictors of such remodeling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Periodontally healthy nonsmoking patients with a failing tooth in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were selected for a prospective case series. All were in need of a single implant and demonstrated high risk for aesthetic complications given an incomplete buccal bone wall and/or thin-scalloped gingival biotype. Following flapless tooth extraction, ridge preservation was performed using one or more collagen-enriched, bovine-derived block grafts (Geistlich Bio-Oss® Collagen® 100 mg, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) without the additional use of membranes or soft tissue grafts. The change in buccopalatal dimension of the alveolar process between baseline (prior to tooth extraction) and 4 months was assessed on the basis of superimposed occlusal slides. Regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of alveolar process remodeling.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (21 females, 21 males; mean age 38) met the selection criteria and consented to the treatment. Mean alveolar process remodeling was 14% (SD 7, range 4-30) with minimal remodeling (≤ 10%) in 16 patients (38%) and advanced remodeling (>20%) in 10 patients (24%). A single implant could be installed in all subjects without additional guided bone regeneration. Connective tissue grafting was performed later on in the treatment for aesthetic purposes, hereby compensating for tissue loss at the buccal aspect. Predictors of alveolar process remodeling were tooth location (central incisors and cuspids > laterals incisors and premolars), tooth abscess (p = .025), and buccal bone loss (p = .035).

CONCLUSION

Alveolar process remodeling seems inevitable yet acceptable following ridge preservation in high-risk patients. Proper case selection may reduce the incidence of advanced remodeling.

Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To assess the 5-year survival of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications. The focused question was: What is the survival rate of implants supporting single crowns and implant-supported crowns with a mean follow-up of 5 years and to which extent do biological, technical, and aesthetic complications occur?

METHODS

A Medline search (2006-2011) was performed for clinical studies focusing on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up of at least 5 years. The search was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 24 studies from a previous systematic review (Jung et al. 2008a). Survival and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year proportions.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies derived from an initial search count of 1083 titles and the complementary publications from the previous systematic review (Jung et al. 2008a) were selected and the data were extracted. Based on the meta-analysis, survival of implants supporting SCs at 5 years amounted to 97.2% (95% CI: 96.3-97.9%), and at 10 years amounted to 95.2% (95% CI: 91.8-97.2%). The survival of implant-supported SCs was 96.3% (95% CI: 94.2-97.6%) after 5 years and 89.4% (95% CI: 82.8-93.6%) after 10 years. For biological complications, a 5-year cumulative soft tissue complication rate of 7.1% (95% CI: 4.4-11.3%) and a cumulative complication rate for implants with bone loss >2 mm of 5.2% (95% CI: 3.1-8.6%) were calculated. Technical complications reached a cumulative incidence of 8.8% (95% CI: 5.1-15.0%) for screw-loosening, 4.1% (95% CI: 2.2-7.5%) for loss of retention, and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.4-5.2%) for fracture of the veneering material after 5 years. The cumulative 5-year aesthetic complication rate amounted to 7.1% (95% CI: 3.6-13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of the meta-analysis demonstrated high implant survival rates for both the single tooth implants and the respective single crowns after 5 and 10 years. However, technical, biological, and aesthetic complications were frequent.

Early, delayed, or late single implant placement: 10-year results from a randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to present the 10-year clinical and radiographic data from a RCT on single-tooth implants placed early, delayed, or late after tooth extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-three patients were randomly allocated to three groups and received an implant on average 10 days (Ea), 3 months (De), or 17 months (La) after tooth extraction. Second-stage surgery was performed after 3 months of submerged healing; metal-ceramic crowns were cemented after one additional month. Standardized periapical radiographs were taken 1 week after implant placement (TP), 1 week (TC) and 1-1.5 year (T1) after crown delivery, and 10 years after implant placement (T10). Pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing were registered during controls (TC - T10).

RESULTS

Two Ea and one De implants failed to osseointegrate. Seven patients (4 Ea, 1 De, and 2 La) were not available at T10 . No significant differences were found among groups regarding implant survival or radiographic peri-implant marginal bone levels (Ea: 1.15 ± 0.77; De: 1.53 ± 1.06; La: 1.42 ± 1.07) at T10 . Similarly, no differences were observed among groups in the number of implants with PD ≥ 5 mm (Ea: 29%; De: 35%; La: 44%) or the average depth of the sites with PD ≥ 5 mm (Ea: 5.4 ± 0.7; De: 6.1 ± 1.4; La: 5.4 ± 0.5) at T10 . Peri-implant mucositis was found in 70% of the cases; peri-implantitis was diagnosed only in two implants (1 De, 1 La) corresponding to 4.3%.

CONCLUSION

Single-tooth implants placed early or delayed after tooth extraction show high survival rates and limited peri-implant marginal bone resorption or biological complications, similar to what is observed with implants placed according to the conventional (late) protocol.

Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Early implant placement with simultaneous contour augmentation is documented with short- and medium-term studies. The long-term stability of contour augmentation is uncertain.

METHODS

In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 41 patients with an implant-borne single crown were examined twice, in 2006 and 2010. Clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were assessed at both examinations. In addition, a cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) image was obtained during the second examination to assess the dimensions of the facial bone wall.

RESULTS

All 41 implants demonstrated ankylotic stability without signs of peri-implant infection at both examinations. The clinical parameters remained stable over time. Satisfactory esthetic outcomes were noted, as assessed by the pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) indices. Overall, the PES scores were slightly higher than the WES scores. None of the implants developed mucosal recession over time, as confirmed by values of the distance between implant shoulder and mucosal margin and cast measurements. The periapical radiographs yielded stable peri-implant bone levels, with a mean distance between implant shoulder and first visible bone-implant contact value of 2.18 mm. The CBCT analysis demonstrated a mean thickness of the facial bone wall ≈2.2 mm. In two implants (4.9%) no facial bone wall was detectable radiographically.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective cross-sectional study demonstrates stable peri-implant hard and soft tissues for all 41 implants examined and satisfactory esthetic outcomes overall. The follow-up of 5 to 9 years confirmed again that the risk for mucosal recession is low with early implant placement. In addition, contour augmentation with guided bone regeneration was able to establish and maintain a facial bone wall in 95% of patients.

Surgical protocols for early implant placement in post-extraction sockets: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the best timing for placing implants after tooth extraction, by comparing early vs. delayed implant placement and evaluating the hard and/or soft tissue ridge dimensional changes and the outcomes related with implant survival and prosthesis success.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online search of the main databases including The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE via Pubmed), Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted up to February 2011. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies and case-control retrospective studies, with a follow-up of at least 1 month after loading of dental implants, comparing: (i) early vs. delayed implant placement, (ii) augmentation vs. no augmentation at implant placement in early placed implants and/or (iii) the comparison of various augmentation procedures at early implant placement, were conducted. A hand search of relevant journals was also performed. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of their methodological quality and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Authors of studies were contacted for clarification or missing information.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, although meta-analysis could only be performed with the data from two studies comparing early vs. delayed implant. The percentage of bone height and bone width reduction favoured the early placement, with pooled mean difference between groups of 13.11% (95% CI: from 3.83 to 22.4; P = 0.057) and 19.85% (95% CI: from 13.85 to 25.81) respectively. Implant survival demonstrated a non-significant higher implant survival rate for the early group (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.1).With regard to patient satisfaction, statistically significant differences between the groups in favour of the early group for overall satisfaction and appearance with the restoration were demonstrated at 2 years, although these differences were lost at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of dental implants at an early timing after tooth extraction may offer advantages in terms of soft and hard tissue preservation, when compared with a delayed protocol. Nevertheless, well-designed, high quality, randomized clinical trials, are needed, because the available evidence is today limited in terms of available studies and quality.

Four modalities of single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: a clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic evaluation

PURPOSE

To document the outcome of single implants in the anterior maxilla following four routine treatment modalities when performed by experienced clinicians in daily practice using the same implant system and biomaterials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study in patients who had been treated by two periodontists and two prosthodontists in 2006 and 2007 was conducted. The four treatment modalities practically covered every clinical situation and included standard implant treatment (SIT), immediate implant treatment (IIT), implant treatment in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR), and implant treatment in grafted bone (BGR) harvested from the chin. All implants were installed via flap surgery. Patients were clinically and radiographically examined. Complications were registered and the aesthetic outcome (pink esthetic score [PES] and white esthetic score [WES]) was rated. A blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment performed all evaluations. Patient's aesthetic satisfaction was also registered.

RESULTS

One hundred four out of 115 eligible patients (44 SIT, 28 IIT, 18 GBR, and 14 BGR) received at least one single NobelReplace tapered TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) implant in the anterior maxilla and were available for evaluation. Clinical parameters (implant survival: 93%, mean plaque level: 24%, mean bleeding on probing: 33%, and mean probing depth: 3.2 mm) and mean bone level (1.19 mm) did not differ significantly between treatment modalities. Postoperative complications were more common following GBR/BGR (>61%) when compared with SIT/IIT (<18%) (p < .001). BGR was in 4/14 patients associated with permanent sensory complications at the donor site. Technical complications occurred in 9/104 patients. SIT and IIT showed similar soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 10.07 and 10.88, respectively), however major alveolar process deficiency was common (>15%). PES was 9.65 for GBR. BGR showed inferior soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 9.00; p = .045) and shorter distal papillae were found following GBR/BGR (p = .009). Periodontal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 13.0, p < .001), GBR/BGR (OR: 4.3, p = .004), and a thin-scalloped gingival biotype (OR: 3.7, p = .011) increased the risk for incomplete distal papillae. WES was 7.98 for all patients considered. Poor agreement was found between objective and subjective aesthetic ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

All treatment modalities were predictable from a clinical and radiographic point of view. However, advanced reconstructive surgery, especially BGR, increased the risk for complications and compromised aesthetics. Research is required on the prevention and minimally invasive treatment of buccal bone defects at the time of tooth loss to avoid complex therapy.

Stability of contour augmentation and esthetic outcomes of implant-supported single crowns in the esthetic zone: 3-year results of a prospective study with early implant placement postextraction

BACKGROUND

Early implant placement is one of the treatment options after tooth extraction. Implant surgery is performed after a healing period of 4 to 8 weeks and combined with a simultaneous contour augmentation using the guided bone regeneration technique to rebuild stable esthetic facial hard- and soft-tissue contours.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 20 patients were treated with an implant-born single crown and followed for 3 years. Clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were recorded to assess treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

At the 3-year examination, all 20 implants were successfully integrated, demonstrating ankylotic stability and healthy peri-implant soft tissues as documented by standard clinical parameters. Esthetic outcomes were assessed by the pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) and confirmed pleasing results overall. WES values were slightly superior to PES values. Periapical radiographs showed minimal crestal bone loss around used bone-level implants with a mean bone loss of 0.18 mm at 3 years. Only two implants revealed bone loss between 0.5 and 1.0 mm. One of these implants had minor mucosal recession <1.0 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study evaluates the concept of early implant placement and demonstrated successful tissue integration for all 20 implants and stable bone-crest levels around implant-abutment interfaces according to the platform-switching concept. The midterm 3-year follow-up revealed pleasing esthetic outcomes and stable facial soft tissues. The risk of mucosal recession was low, with only one patient showing minor recession of the facial mucosa. These encouraging results need to be confirmed with a 5-year follow-up examination.

Single implant treatment in healing versus healed sites of the anterior maxilla: an aesthetic evaluation

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare and document in detail the aesthetic outcome of single implant treatment in healing sites (early implant placement) with fully healed sites (conventional implant placement) of the anterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study in patients who had been treated by two periodontists and two prosthodontists in 2006 and 2007 was conducted. Surgical treatment involved standard flap elevation without releasing incisions and restorative procedures included cemented crowns in all patients. Only straightforward single implant treatments using Nobelreplace tapered TiUnite® implants (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) in healing sites (6-8 weeks following tooth extraction) and fully healed sites (≥6 months following tooth extraction) were considered with both neighboring teeth present and without the need for hard and/or soft tissue grafting. The aesthetic outcome was objectively rated using the pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic scrore (WES) by a blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment. Patients rated aesthetics by means of visual analogue scales.

RESULTS

Twenty-one out of 22 early and 25/27 conventional implant treatments were available for aesthetic evaluation after on average two and a half years of function (range 17-41 months). There were no significant differences for any of the criteria between the treatment concepts. Overall, papillae were most easy to satisfy, whereas alveolar process and tooth color most difficult. A thin-scalloped biotype was associated with low distal papillae (p=.041) and alveolar process deficiency (p=.039). Twenty-six percent of the cases were aesthetic failures (PES<8 and/or WES<6) and 13% showed an (almost) perfect outcome (PES≥12 and WES≥9). The remainder (61%) demonstrated acceptable aesthetics. There was no significant correlation between objective and subjective ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and conventional single implant treatment yielded comparable aesthetic outcome. Albeit all treatments had been performed by experienced clinicians and only straightforward cases had been selected, 1 out of 4 cases were aesthetic failures and only a strict minority showed perfection. Research is required on the aesthetic outcome of alternative surgical procedures especially in high-risk patients with a thin-scalloped biotype.