Immediate Loading Using the Digitalized Customized Restoration of Single-tooth Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets in the Aesthetic Anterior Maxilla: A 10-Year Prospective Study of Marginal Bone Level.

AIM: The objective of this study was to assess marginal bone level around single implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets in the anterior maxillary region and instantly restored with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized temporary crowns cemented on the final abutment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients (15 females and 5 males, with a mean age of 30 years), where 20 were placed in fresh extraction sockets. After raising a full-thickness flap, atraumatic extraction was performed the implant site was prepared and fixtures were stabilized on the palatal bone wall. The implant location was immediately transmitted to the prepared master model using the pick-up impression coping seated in the surgical guide template. Prefabricated abutments were used as the final abutment on the master model, scanned and the crown was planned using computer-aided manufacturing customized software. Later on 8th weeks, abutments were torqued as per the manufacturer's recommendation, and the final crowns were cemented. Using personalized intraoral radiographs marginal bone level was evaluated mesially and distally to the implant shoulder as a reference at implant placement, 8 weeks, 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after loading. RESULTS: Wholly implants were osteo-integrated positively after 10 years of practical loading, but only 18 were available for clinical and radiological follow-up, and 2 patients with two implants were excluded from the study due to relocation abroad without any implant failure. The average marginal bone loss (MBL) in the current report was 0.16 ± 0.167 mm at crown cementation, 0.275 ± 0.171 mm after 1 year, 0.265 ± 0.171 mm after 3 years, 0.213 ± 0.185 mm after 5 years, and 0.217 ± 0.194 mm at 10 years. CONCLUSION: The strategy of inserting and not removing the final abutment at the time of implant placement facilitates the establishment of adequate attachment of both soft and hard tissues to the abutment surface, ensuring uninterrupted organization of tissue architecture and offers advantages in helping maintain soft tissue maturation and preventing marginal bone level. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Immediately loaded implants in freshly extracted sockets lead to a significant reduction in marginal ridge resorption. The use of a temporary crown on a prefabricated abutment, exclusive of successive abutment manipulation, proved effective in preserving the primarily founding blood clot and served as a prototype for shaping the soft tissue around the previously wounded gum. How to cite this article: Berberi A, El Zoghbi A, Aad G, et al. Immediate Loading Using the Digitalized Customized Restoration of Single-tooth Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets in the Aesthetic Anterior Maxilla: A 10-Year Prospective Study of Marginal Bone Level. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(3):213-220.

Transferring emergence profile and position of interim restorative implant fixture. A novel digital technique.

The present technical article describes a protocol to digitally reproduce the emergence profile of an interim implant prosthesis (IP) and to transfer its macrogeometry into the definitive restoration. The purpose of this protocol was to minimize alterations in the gingival architecture developed during the interim restorative phase of a single implant that could potentially jeopardize its esthetic outcome. The process included obtaining an intraoral scan with the interim IP in situ, a duplicate of this intraoral scan that was used to capture the exact position of the implant, and an extraoral scan of the prosthesis. These data could then be imported into IOS software to create a model where the patients' soft tissue was incorporated with precision, allowing for the fabrication of a definitive crown with an optimal soft tissue adaptation. As there are few articles in the scientific literature that have reported a consistent method to replicate the emergence profile of an interim IP, the present technical article aims to highlight the potential of utilizing the emergence profile of an interim IP created by IOS software.

Immediate implant placement in a dialysis patient. A case report.

Implant-supported rehabilitation in high-risk patients poses significant challenges for the dental team. The presence of comorbidities and increased infection risk can, for example, lead to a higher risk of implant loss. For the therapy to be completed with as few complications as possible, special anamnesis, detailed diagnostics, and a risk analysis based on those findings are indispensable. The aim of all considerations is to keep the risk of infection for the patient with a disease history to a minimum and to strive for an appropriate functional and esthetic therapeutic success. Particularly in the esthetic zone, in addition to the general health risks of the surgical procedure, esthetic aspects are increasingly taken into account in planning. The present article describes the implant-prosthetic replacement of a single anterior tooth in a dialysis patient. Several aspects (regular dialysis, missing buccal lamella, high smile line, functional risk) increased the risk of complications in this case.

Positional Trueness with Different Titanium Base Bonding Techniques for Single Implant Crowns: In Vitro Evaluation of Model-Free Workflow Versus Additively Manufactured Models.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the positional trueness of implant-crown bonding to titanium bases (Ti-bases) using different bonding protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nonprecious alloy model with a single implant at the mandibular right first molar site was digitized, then a single implant crown was designed. The crown was milled, adhesively cemented on a Ti-base, and screw-retained on the implant in the master model to obtain a reference scan. Forty PMMA implant crowns were subtractively manufactured and allocated to one of four study groups (n = 10 crowns per group) based on the bonding protocol on Ti-bases: Group 1 = modelfree bonding; Group 2 = bonding on the master model (control); Group 3 = bonding on a model from an industrial-grade 3D printer (Prodways); Group 4 = bonding on a model from a conventional 3D printer (Asiga). To assess the positional trueness of crowns, the scans of crowns when on the model were superimposed over the reference scan. Median distance and angular deviations were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann- Whitney tests (α = .05). Mesial and distal contacts of crowns were assessed by two independent clinicians. RESULTS: The control group (Group 2) resulted in the smallest distance deviations (0.30 ± 0.03 mm) compared to model-free (0.35 ± 0.02 mm; P = .002; Group 1) and conventional 3D printer (0.37 ± 0.01 mm; P = .001; Group 4) workflows. Buccolingual (P = .002) and mesiodistal (P = .01) angular deviations were higher in the conventional 3D printer group than in the control group (P = .002). Proximal contact assessments did not show any differences among groups. CONCLUSIONS: While bonding crowns to Ti-bases on a master model created with an industrial-grade 3D printer resulted in the highest positional trueness, model-free workflows had a similar positional trueness to those manufactured with a conventional 3D printer.

Dental implant and abutment in PEEK: stress assessment in single crown retainers on anterior region.

OBJECTIVE: Stress distribution assessment by finite elements analysis in poly(etheretherketone) (PEEK) implant and abutment as retainers of single crowns in the anterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five 3D models were created, varying implant/abutment manufacturing materials: titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), pure PEEK (PEEKp), carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK (PEEKc), glass fiber-reinforced PEEK (PEEKg). A 50 N load was applied 30o off-axis at the incisal edge of the upper central incisor. The Von Mises stress (σvM) was evaluated on abutment, implant/screw, and minimum principal stress (σmin) and maximum shear stress (τmax) for cortical and cancellous bone. RESULTS: The abutment σvM lowest stress was observed in PEEKp group, being 70% lower than Ti and 74% than Zr. On the implant, PEEKp reduced 68% compared to Ti and a 71% to Zr. In the abutment screws, an increase of at least 33% was found in PEEKc compared to Ti, and of at least 81% to Zr. For cortical bone, the highest τmax values were in the PEEKp group, and a slight increase in stress was observed compared to all PEEK groups with Ti and Zr. For σmin, the highest stress was found in the PEEKc. Stress increased at least 7% in cancellous bone for all PEEK groups. CONCLUSION: Abutments and implants made by PEEKc concentrate less σvM stress, transmitting greater stress to the cortical and medullary bone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The best stress distribution in PEEKc components may contribute to decreased stress shielding; in vitro and in vivo research is recommended to investigate this.

A Case Against the Implant.

It is incumbent upon our profession to reevaluate our preference for routinely replacing a missing single maxillary incisor, especially a maxillary lateral incisor, with a dental implant in a young adult. The dental literature is replete with beautiful restorative results using implants in this area, but there is minimal discussion regarding the long-term consequences of this treatment. The maxillary lateral incisor is one of the most commonly missing teeth due to agenesis, and it is also one of the most common teeth to be lost due to trauma in the developing child.1 Therefore, the decision for replacement must be made with the long-term in mind, as these restorations are commonly placed between ages 18 and 21 and must serve the patient for many decades. There are several reasons that implants can be associated with complications or even fail, including the following: (1) Continued craniofacial growth, which has a predominant anterior and vertical component and has been shown to occur in the maxilla, resulting in the apparent submersion of the implant crown as the natural teeth move incisally in relation to the implant2,3-there is no evidence that this can be predicted, let alone how far into the future it may happen; (2) peri-implantitis, which has a patient-level prevalence estimate of nearly 25% according to the findings of a recent systematic review;4 (3) thinning and recession of the peri-implant mucosa due to poor implant placement, inadequate prosthetic management, and/or poor case selection, often resulting in compromised esthetics and a predisposition for the onset and progression of peri-implant diseases; and (4) mechanical failure of the implant, abutment screw, transmucosal abutment, and/or crown. Clinicians should also keep in mind that, once an implant is placed in the anterior maxilla, it precludes the possibility for palatal expansion in the adult patient because the space created by the expansion cannot be redistributed orthodontically. Canine substitution is one traditional method for replacement of the missing maxillary lateral incisor. It is still a viable option when the canine tooth has an acceptable shape and color, and the occlusion will not be compromised by the substitution.5 Additionally, the bonded single-wing zirconia bridge has become a primary treatment option.6 Zirconia has the strength of metal and beauty of porcelain, which makes it an ideal substrate for a bonded bridge. The literature has demonstrated the long-term success of this replacement option for the missing maxillary incisor.7 There are clearly many potential long-term disadvantages associated with replacing a single missing maxillary incisor with an implant in young adults. We should be prescribing the least-invasive treatment option for the replacement of these teeth. Therefore, when treatment-planning for a missing maxillary incisor in a young adult, alternatives to implant therapy-such as the bonded single-wing zirconia bridge and canine substitution-should be the primary treatment options. The implant should only be considered as a secondary treatment when the other options are not viable or have previously failed.

Mandibular overdenture with a single implant in the canine region (c-SIMO): a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this multi-center pilot study was to assess the viability and feasibility of a novel treatment concept - the canine-positioned single implant mandibular overdenture (c-SIMO), with the single implant placed on the patient's preferred chewing side instead of the midline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants received a single implant in the canine region of their preferred chewing side, based on an Asymmetry Index observed during mastication. The pre-existing mandibular denture was transformed into a c-SIMO on a spherical attachment. The primary outcome was oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), measured with GOHAI and OHIP-EDENT. Secondary outcomes included denture satisfaction index (DSI), chewing efficiency (CE), maximum bite force (MBF), implant survival and success, and prosthetic maintenance. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and bivariate comparison tests. RESULTS: Fifteen participants received the c-SIMO treatment (mean age: 69.9 ± 7.0). Implant success and survival rates were 100% at 1 year. Patient-reported outcome measures improved significantly compared to pre-treatment values (OHIP-EDENT: p = 0.001; DSI: p = 0.001; GOHAI: p = 0.002). Masticatory outcomes also improved significantly (CE: p = 0.001; overall MBF: p = 0.005). Post-implant, MBF was significantly higher in the ipsilateral side compared to the contralateral side at 2 weeks (p = 0.019) and 3 months (p = 0.015), but no longer at T3 (p = 0.730). Common prosthodontic events included denture base adjustments (n = 17) and matrix activation (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study concludes that c-SIMO is a promising treatment option, and a potential alternative to the single midline implant overdenture. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The novel treatment concept of a canine-positioned single implant mandibular overdenture could be a viable treatment alternative to the midline positioning.

Static and dynamic stress analysis of different crown materials on a titanium base abutment in an implant-supported single crown: a 3D finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: This Finite Element Analysis was conducted to analyze the biomechanical behaviors of titanium base abutments and several crown materials with respect to fatigue lifetime and stress distribution in implants and prosthetic components. METHODS: Five distinct designs of implant-supported single crowns were modeled, including a polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network, monolithic lithium disilicate, and precrystallized and crystallized zirconia-reinforced lithium silicates supported by a titanium base abutment. For the static load, a 100 N oblique load was applied to the buccal incline of the palatal cusp of the maxillary right first premolar. The dynamic load was applied in the same way as in static loading with a frequency of 1 Hz. The principal stresses in the peripheral bone as well as the von Mises stresses and fatigue strength of the implants, abutments, prosthetic screws, and crowns were assessed. RESULTS: All of the models had comparable von Mises stress values from the implants and abutments, as well as comparable maximum and minimum principal stress values from the cortical and trabecular bones. The PEEK crown showed the lowest stress (46.89 MPa) in the cervical region. The prosthetic screws and implants exhibited the highest von Mises stress among the models. The lithium disilicate crown model had approximately 9.5 times more cycles to fatique values for implants and 1.7 times more cycles to fatique values for abutments than for the lowest ones. CONCLUSIONS: With the promise of at least ten years of clinical success and favorable stress distributions in implants and prosthetic components, clinicians can suggest using an implant-supported lithium disilicate crown with a titanium base abutment.

SURVIVAL RATE OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED, SINGLE-TOOTH RESTORATIONS BASED ON ZIRCONIA OR METAL ABUTMENT IN PATIENTS WITH TOOTH AGENESIS: A 5-YEARS PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to investigate survival rate of zirconia versus metal abutments, and the secondary aim was clinical outcomes of all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic crowns on single-tooth implants. METHODS: Patients with tooth-agenesis participated to previously published prospective clinical study with 3-year follow-up were recalled after 5 years. Biological variables included survival and success rate of implants, marginal bone level, modified Plaque and Sulcus Bleeding Index and biological complications. Technical variables included restoration survival rate, marginal adaptation and technical complications. The aesthetic outcome of crowns and peri-implant mucosa in addition to patient-reported outcome were recorded. Descriptive analysis, linear mixed model for quantitative data, or generalized linear mixed model for ordinal categorical data were applied; significance was set to 0.05. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (mean age: 32.4 years), with 89 implants participated to the 5-years examination. The implants supported 50 zirconia abutments with 50 all-ceramic (AC) crown and 39 metal abutments with 29 metal-ceramic (MC) and 10 AC crowns. The Implant and restoration survival rate was 100% and 96%, respectively. No clinically relevant biological difference between implants supporting metal or zirconia abutments was registered. The technical complications were veneering fracture of AC-crowns (n = 3), crown loosening of MC-crowns (n = 4) and one abutment screw loosening (MC-crown on metal abutment). MC-crowns had significantly better marginal adaptation than AC-crowns (p = .01). AC-crowns had significantly better color and morphology than MC-crowns (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia-based single-tooth restorations are reliable alternative materials to metal-based restorations with favorable biological and aesthetic outcome, and few technical complications.

Volumetric Analysis of Peri-implant Tissue Change Over Time: Validating an Innovative 3D Method.

PURPOSE: To validate an innovative 3D volumetric method of evaluating tissue changes proposed by Lee et al in 2020 by comparing the results of this method-in which the scanned peri-implant surfaces were transformed, visualized, and analyzed as 3D objects-to the results reported by an existing method based on calculation of the mean distance between measured surfaces. The null hypothesis was that there was no statistically significant difference between the two methods. Additionally, the present study evaluated peri-implant tissue changes 5 years after single implant placement in the esthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both methods were applied to 11 oral implant site casts (6 maxillary central incisor sites, 5 maxillary lateral incisor sites) taken from 11 patients at crown placement and at follow-up examinations 5 years later. The methods are based on digital workflows in which the reference and 5-year casts are scanned and the resulting STL files are superimposed and analyzed for three regions of interest (mesial papilla, central area, and distal papilla). The volumetric changes reported by the Lee et al method and the mean distance method were calculated and compared using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (P < .01) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P < .05). RESULTS: The correlation between the two sets of measurements was very high (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.885). The new volumetric method indicated a mean volume loss of 2.82 mm3 (SD: 5.06), while the method based on the measurement of mean distance showed a mean volume loss of 2.92 mm3 (SD: 4.43; Wilcoxon signed-rank test result: P = .77). No statistically significant difference was found. The two methods gave equivalent results, and the null hypothesis was accepted. CONCLUSIONS: The new volumetric method was validated and can be considered a trustworthy tool.

A Modified Socket-Shield Technique: Simplifying the Root Sectioning Process.

Socket wall resorption leading to a loss of surrounding bone following tooth extraction has been documented in the dental literature. The use of various socket-shield techniques has been suggested as a solution to this issue. In these approaches, the tooth root is sectioned in two, and the coronal two-thirds of the buccal root is preserved in the socket. This allows the periodontium along with the bundle and buccal bone to remain intact, thus preventing or minimizing bone remodeling. According to the literature, this procedure is highly technique sensitive, especially when it comes to sectioning the root. Additionally, the procedure requires significant time, and several complications may occur, such as fenestration or luxation of the remaining root, requiring its complete extraction. This case report presents a modified socket-shield technique using a trephine bur guided by a computer-designed surgical guide to simplify root sectioning, thus reducing surgical time while increasing predictability of the outcome.

Assessment of reproducibility and influence of different dental specialties on functional implant prosthodontic score: A prospective clinical study analyzing single-unit implant crowns.

AIM: Implant therapy in partially edentulous patients has become the most adapted and predictable treatment modality. The success rate of implants has been measured in terms of esthetic, biological, and technical factors such as radiographic bone loss, prosthetic complications, and stability. Despite the existence of several indices for the esthetic assessment of implant crowns, a need for functional evaluation of the implant crown with an objective and reproducible score has arisen. The study aims to validate the reproducibility of the functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) and the influence exerted by different dental specialties while evaluating posterior single-unit implant crowns. STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN: This was a prospective clinical study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with cement-retained single-implant crowns in the posterior region of the jaws were included. Eight examiners, two prosthodontists, two periodontists, two oral surgeons, and two orthodontists evaluated 15 photographs of single-unit implant crowns during the 1-year follow-up examination. The examiners assessed the photographs for FIPS, which includes five parameters for objectively evaluating the single-unit implant crowns. Assessments were performed twice at a gap of 4 weeks. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Pearson's correlation with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for the intra-examiner and the Kruskal-Wallis test for inter-examiner reproducibility. RESULTS: The mean total FIPS scores for all included examiners were 7.133 for time T1 and 7.074 for time T2, showing a strong Pearson correlation coefficient for intra-examiner reproducibility. No significant difference was analyzed among different specialties with statistically significant values of the Kruskal-Wallis test. CONCLUSION: Intra- and inter-examiner analysis showed very consistent results during the reproducibility assessment of FIPS. The results validated the use of FIPS as a long-term predictive functional evaluation tool for the single-implant crowns in posterior sites irrespective of the effect of different dental specialties. It could be used for risk estimation and prognosis for long-term survival and performance of implant crowns.

Unconventional Dental Implant Placement Through an Impacted Maxillary Central Incisor in Stable Contact With Enamel and Dentin: A Case Report.

When edentulism is accompanied by an impacted tooth, conventional treatment usually involves traumatic tooth extraction, which would inevitably destroy the surrounding alveolar bone and cause unfavorable esthetics, especially for anterior teeth. Recently, implant placement through the impacted tooth or residual root has been proposed as an alternative to invasive extraction. A particular type of integration has been observed between dentin/cementum and titanium implant, while enamel-implant contact has not been reported. In this article, an implant was placed through the impacted maxillary central incisor, thereby avoiding an invasive extraction surgery. The buccal section of the tooth, including crown enamel, was retained in situ for buccal alveolar ridge preservation. The follow-up results were satisfactory, and a stable enamel-implant contact was observed. Combining with previous similar studies, this technique opens intriguing possibilities and brings fresh insight for the concept of dentointegration. More histological and clinical studies with long-term follow-up are warranted before endorsing this technique in routine application.

Finite element analysis of stress distribution on residual root structure in socket shield procedure following immediate dental implant placement: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: The success of implants in the socket shield technique relies on stress experienced by root fragments within the socket. Although there is no consensus on optimal root fragment thickness, varying thicknesses and dynamic implant placement induce stress in various directions and degrees. This study aimed to assess biomechanical response and stress distribution across different root fragment thicknesses in the socket shield procedure. METHODS: This in vitro study was conducted to assess and compare the stress distribution on residual root structures of varying thicknesses positioned within the labial aspect of the maxillary incisor socket during immediate implant placement of standard dimensions. The procedure involved applying an insertional torque of 40 Ncm, and the analysis was conducted using finite element analysis software. RESULTS: Utilizing the Numerical Technique with Abaqus software for explicit dynamics, von Mises stress and principal strain were analyzed on the root structure and bone under nonlinear contact conditions during implant torque application. For Model A, a loading torque of 40 Ncm was applied vertically on the implant, along with a horizontal force of 20 N on the root structure and bone. Results indicated maximum stress of 12.68 MPa on the root structure with a thickness of 0.5 mm and 5.61 MPa on the bone, with principal strains of 6.82E-03 and 4.10E-03, respectively. In Model B, with a root structure thickness of 1.0 mm, the maximum stress increased to 19.70 MPa, while the bone stress rose to 9.51 MPa, with principal strains of 1.03E-02 and 6.09E-03. Model C, with a root structure thickness of 1.5 mm, exhibited a maximum stress of 21.58 MPa on the root and 10.12 MPa on the bone, with principal strains of 1.16E-02 and 6.10E-03. Lastly, in Model D, with a root structure thickness of 2.0 mm, the maximum stress on the root structure and bone escalated to 28.74 MPa and 11.38 MPa, respectively, with principal strains of 1.55E-02 and 8.31E-03. CONCLUSIONS: As the thickness of the shield increases (ranging from 0.5 to 2 mm) in socket shield procedures with immediate implant placement, both stress on the root fragment and bone and principal micro-strain escalate. However, employing a shield thickness within the range of 0.5 to 2 mm does not lead to any adverse stress generation on the residual root fragment. However, for enhanced safety, it is recommended to restrict the maximum diameter and extension of the root fragment to 1.5 mm when considering implant sizes and socket diameter for the socket shield technique.

Immediate loading of implants inserted through impacted teeth in the aesthetic area: A retrospective study with a mean follow-up period of 7 years.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the survival and success rate of and the incidence of complications affecting implants inserted and immediately loaded in sites where an impacted tooth was present in the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 patients were treated and 14 implants were inserted, 4 in healed sites and 10 in extraction sites. The implant site preparation started in the crestal bone and continued in the enamel and dentine of the impacted tooth. The radiographic depth of implant penetration into the impacted tooth, peri-implant soft tissue and hard tissue condition at the 1-year follow-up and the last follow-up appointment, marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up and the last follow-up appointment, and the final aesthetic result were evaluated. RESULTS: The implants healed uneventfully with an adequate hard and soft tissue response and no adverse clinical or radiographic signs or symptoms. They were in function for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 11 years (mean 7.2 years). CONCLUSION: Although further studies with a larger sample size are required to validate this unconventional approach, it can be considered a valuable clinical option to replace teeth in an area of impaction.

Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

Prefabricated shouldered abutments enable successful restoration of molar crowns on implants.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study evaluated the effect of selected clinical and patient factors on survival, success, and peri-implant bone level changes of locking taper implants supporting molar crowns on Bicon's prefabricated shouldered abutments. METHODS: A total of 234 patients, who received 274 single molar crowns supported by locking taper implants were included in this retrospective study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to assess overall implant survival, prostheses survival, and success. Crowns were either monolithic (resin based) or bilayered (milled fiber-reinforced composite coping veneered with indirect composite). Early and late changes in marginal bone levels were plotted and analyzed with equivalence testing to compare the effects of different factors on crestal bone levels. RESULTS: At 9.5 years after implant surgery, the implant survival probability was 94.2%, the probability of prosthesis survival was 91.4%, and the probability of prosthetic success was 90.4%. Neither the use of different crown materials, nor the choice of monolithic versus bilayered crown construction, significantly affected the probability of prosthetic success. Marginal bone levels, on average, trended downwards towards the top of the implant within the first 2 years after functional loading, and remained stable on average, since then. Factors affecting bone levels included the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which precluded early implant bone loss; and subcrestal implant placement, which was linked to significantly higher long-term bone levels. CONCLUSION: The implant and abutment system studied resulted in high implant and prosthetic survival rates, regardless of prosthetic material used, with stable bone levels over time.

Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the 5-year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0 ), and at 1 (T1 ), 12 (T12 ) and 60 (T60 ) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre-operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score-White Aesthetic Score), soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was -0.6 (-1.1 to -0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (-0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This 5-year follow-up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri-implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

The bone shielding versus dual-zone concept in treating thin-walled fresh extraction sockets with immediate implant placement: Soft and hard tissue changes. A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ridge alterations and esthetic outcome 1 year after immediate implant placement using the dual-zone (DZ) technique versus the bone shielding concept in patients with intact thin-walled sockets in the esthetic zone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized clinical trial included 26 patients with nonrestorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone who were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 13 each) to receive immediate implants using either the bone shielding concept or DZ. Definitive restorations were delivered after 2 months. Pink esthetic scores (PESs), vertical soft tissue alterations, and bucco-palatal ridge dimensional changes were measured and assessed using intra-oral digital scans at baseline and 1 year post-procedure. Labial bone thickness was measured using cone beam computed tomography scans at baseline and after 1 year. RESULTS: The bone shielding group provided bucco-palatal ridge thickness stability after 1 year (9.43 mm) compared to baseline values (9.82 mm), while DZ showed a significant loss in the bucco-palatal ridge thickness after 1 year (7.83) compared to baseline values (9.49). No significant difference was reported in the baseline bucco-palatal ridge thickness between the two groups (p = 0.6). After 1 year, the bone shielding group demonstrated 0.38 mm ridge shrinkage which was statistically significant (p = 0.0002) compared to 1.67 mm ridge shrinkage in the DZ group. In addition, the average total PES in the bone shielding group was 12.04 versus 10.28 in the DZ group. No significant difference was reported in the mesial papilla length between the DZ and the bone shielding group after 1 year (p > 0.05). However, the midfacial gingival margin (p = 0.026) and distal papilla were significantly higher in the DZ group (p = 0.0025). There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD mm bone gain at the apical level between the two studied groups after 1 year (p = 0.06) showing 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.64 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. However, the bone shielding concept showed a statistically significant more bone gain mm (p < 0.001) at the (0.56 ± 0.43) and crestal (0.03 ± 0.8) levels after 1 year compared to DZ which revealed 0.18 ± 0.5 and 0.38 ± 0.29 mm bone loss, respectively. CONCLUSION: The bone shielding concept might offer a reliable alternative for restoring thin-walled sockets by minimizing postextraction ridge dimensional alterations effect following immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Nevertheless, the study suffers from confounding bias since there are two systematic differences between the groups, the barrier membrane type, and the level of bone filling. "This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization." CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05381467.