Clinical and radiographic assessment of circular versus triangular cross-section neck implants in the posterior maxilla: Five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Dental implants with a triangular neck design have been developed in order to maintain peri-implant bone. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to assess after 5 years the peri-implant bone stability and the peri-implant soft tissue conditions with this new triangular implant neck design compared to a conventional round neck implant design. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a secondary evaluation of a RCT including 34 patients. Patients were recalled after 1, 3, and finally 5 years to assess implant survival and peri-implant bone levels using standardized radiographs. Peri-implant soft tissue health was also evaluated by recording probing depth, plaque index and Bleeding on Probing. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and the Pink Esthetic Score were also assessed. RESULTS: No implant loss occurred during the 5-year follow up period. The mean ± SD proximal bone remodeling after 5 years reached 0.38 ± 0.39 mm for the circular design and 0.29 ± 0.58 mm for the triangular design (p = .49). Peri-implant soft tissue health parameters and PROMs were found to be comparable. Altogether, 80% of implants presented peri-implant mucositis whereas one implant (4%) displayed sings of peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: The 5-year evaluation of the triangular neck implants showed similar results to the circular neck implants.

An individualized approach for a one-abutment one-time protocol using fully guided implant surgery: a 4-year follow-up case series.

AIM: The objective of the present case series was to evaluate the 4-year outcomes of implants placed in the esthetic area using static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) and restored with a one-abutment one-time (OAOT) protocol using custom-made zirconia abutments and cemented provisional crowns manufactured prior to surgery. Materials and methods: Ten consecutive implants were placed in the esthetic area. Based on a digital implant and prosthodontic planning, surgical guides were ordered and used for the preparation of definitive custom-made zirconia abutments and polymethylmethacrylate provisional crowns. Implants were placed using the s-CAIS guide, and prosthetic components were placed immediately. Implant outcomes were evaluated at the time of surgery, after 4 months, and after 4 years. RESULTS: All implants were successfully placed with s-CAIS and restored with final abutments and provisional crowns. No major prosthetic adverse events were observed. After 4 years, the implant survival rate was 100%, minor peri-implant bleeding on probing was reported, and very stable peri-implant bone levels were observed. The pink esthetic score showed that the prosthetic components were well integrated, and the peri-implant soft tissue was stable. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present case series, these results suggest that emerging digital workflows allow the manufacture of final custom-made abutments and provisional crowns prior to surgery. This individualized OAOT procedure may reduce cement-related complications and improve esthetic outcomes by optimizing soft tissue healing with prosthetic components. However, such protocols have evolved toward fully digital workflows, and comparative clinical trials are needed.