Does the pre-operative buccal soft tissue level at teeth or gingival phenotype dictate the aesthetic outcome after flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalization? Analysis of a prospective clinical case series

Immediate versus delayed implant placement of novel fully tapered tissue-level implants - A retrospective multicenter clinical study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of novel fully tapered tissue-level implants in immediate implant placement (type 1) versus late implant placement (type 4) for the first time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this clinical study, 318 fully tapered tissue-level implants in 65 patients were inserted immediately (n = 68 implants) or late (n = 250 implants) in two different centers. Implant survival and success rates and marginal bone levels were analyzed.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 12.0 ± 5 months, implant survival rates were 97.8% for all implants. No statistically significant difference in implant survival rates between type 1 and type 4 could be detected (98.5% vs 97.6%, HR 0.70, 95%-CI 0.084-5.81). Neither for implant length (HR 0.53, 95%-CI 0.055-5.08) nor for implant width (HR 0.27, CI 0.028-2.55), a significant influence on implant survival could be detected. Type of used biomaterial for filling the gap and immediate loading showed no effect on implant survival. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.02 ± 0.05 mm for type 1 and 0.04 ± 0.1 for type 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this retrospective study and the short follow-up, the results demonstrated comparable high survival and success rates and stable marginal bone levels for type 1 and type 4 placement of this novel tissue-level implant (no clinical trial registration as retrospective study design).

Single-rooted extraction socket classification: A systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient-related factors

Taxonomy and classification of a disease contributes to facilitating the diagnosis and treatment planning process and simplifies communication between clinicians. The aim of this study was to provide a critical appraisal based on a systematic review of the single-rooted extraction socket (ES) classifications and subsequently, introduce a new classification system combining the cornerstones of the previously proposed systems and based on the latest consensus in implant dentistry. Following the systematic search process in PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases 13 ES classifications were detected. The most repeated hard and soft tissue factors in the previous classifications were buccal bone dehiscence, interproximal bone, gingival recession, and soft tissue phenotype. However, there was minimal attention to patient-related factors such as systemic conditions and smoking. Therefore, a new classification system based on the combination of patient-related factors, clinical and radiographical parameters was proposed. This divides an ES into three types. Class I and II sockets are candidates for receiving immediate implant placement and conversely, a class III socket includes a compromised condition that requires multiple-stage reconstruction mostly suitable for standard delayed implant placement with alveolar ridge preservation. Within the limitations of this study, the new classification system not only provides comprehensive inclusion of various crucial parameters in implant placement (such as prediction of future implant position and osteotomy difficulty, etc.) but also, in contrast to the previously introduced systems, is able to classify the ES prior to extraction and also, takes into the account the patient-related factors as the class modifiers following the extraction.