Immediate Load and Esthetic Zone Considerations to Replace Maxillary Incisor Teeth Using a New Zirconia Implant Abutment in the Bone Grafted Anterior Maxilla

Clinical reliability of zirconium abutment in implant restorations in the English and Korean literature

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the mechanical, biological, and esthetic stability of a zirconium abutment according to evidence-based dentistry.

Main text

An electronic search was performed. Domestic studies were found using the keywords “zirconia abutments” and “zirconium abutment” in KMbase, KoreaMed, and the National Assembly Library, and international studies were found using the same keywords in PubMed. All identified studies were divided by evidence level from the viewpoint of the research type utilizing the evidence-based review manual. A total of 102 domestic studies (with Korean language) were found, and 9 of these studies were selected. In these nine studies, 3 had evidence level 3 and 6 had evidence level 4. A total of 97 international studies (with English language) were found, and 19 were selected. Among these 19 studies, 5 had evidence level 2 and 7 had evidence level 3, whereas the remainder had evidence level 4. According to the studies, zirconium abutments are mechanically, biologically, and esthetically stable, but the evidence level of these studies is low, and the follow-up duration is no longer than 5 years.

Conclusions

All examined studies verified the mechanical stability of zirconium abutments for a period no longer than 5 years. Therefore, a long-term clinical observation is needed. Zirconium abutments are thought to be biologically stable, but they are not superior to titanium abutments. As the esthetic stability of such abutments had a low evidence level in the studies that examined here, a much higher evidence level is needed.

Influence of implant location on the clinical outcomes of implant abutments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To compare the failure events and incidence of complications of different abutment materials in anterior and posterior regions. Failure was defined as complete loss of the abutment requiring replacement by a new abutment.

Materials and methods

Electronic searches using PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar complemented with manual searches were performed with specific search terms. Searches were restricted to publications in English between January 2006 and March 2016.

Results

A total of 863 and 1,264 implants were inserted in the anterior and posterior regions, respectively, in a total of 1,529 patients. No titanium abutments failed in anterior or posterior regions. On the other hand, 1.6% of zirconia abutments failed in the anterior region and 1.5% failed in the posterior region. Technical complications occurred mostly in the posterior region and mostly involved zirconia abutment. Meta-analysis was possible only for zirconia-abutment failure, due to considerable heterogeneity of studies and outcome variables. No significant difference in failure rate was found between anterior and posterior zirconia abutments (risk ratio 1.53, 95% CI 0.49–4.77; P=0.47).

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed similar outcomes of different abutment materials when used in anterior and posterior regions in terms of failure events and biological and aesthetic complications. The only significant finding was the increased incidence of technical complications in the posterior region, mostly involving zirconia abutments. Abutment-screw loosening was the most common technical complication.

Esthetic Evaluation of Single-Tooth Morse Taper Connection Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets or Healed Sites

The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with those placed in fully healed sites of the anterior maxilla. This retrospective study was based on data from patients treated with single-tooth Morse taper connection implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and in fully healed sites of the anterior maxilla. Only single implant treatments were considered with both neighboring teeth present. Additional prerequisites for immediate implant treatment were intact socket walls and a thick gingival biotype. The esthetic outcome was objectively rated using the pink esthetic/white esthetic score (PES/WES). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the PES and the WES between the 2 groups. Twenty-two patients received an immediate implant, and 18 patients had conventional implant surgery. The mean follow-up was 31.09 months (SD 5.57; range 24–46) and 34.44 months (SD 7.10; range 24–48) for immediately and conventionally inserted implants, respectively. No implants were lost. All implants fulfilled the success criteria. The mean PES/WES was 14.50 (SD 2.52; range 9–19) and 15.61 (SD 3.20; range 8–20) for immediately and conventionally placed implants, respectively. Immediate implants had a mean PES of 7.45 (SD 1.62; range 4–10) and a mean WES of 7.04 (SD 1.29; range 5–10). Conventional implants had a mean PES of 7.83 (SD 1.58; range 4–10) and a mean WES of 7.77 (SD 1.66; range 4–10). The difference between the 2 groups was not significant. Immediate and conventional single implant treatment yielded comparable esthetic outcomes.