RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: To present the 3-year clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors rehabilitated with two narrow-diameter implants (NDIs). METHODS: The original population consisted of 100 patients rehabilitated with a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia single-unit crown supported by either a Ø2.9 mm (Test) or a Ø3.3 mm (Control) NDI (n = 50). At the 1- and 3-year follow-up (T2, T3), implant survival rate, crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological, and technical complications were recorded, while the assessment of the aesthetic outcomes was performed using the Copenhagen Index Score. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients Ø2.9 mm (n = 39) or Ø3.3 mm (n = 35) reached T3, as 24 patients were lost to follow-up and 1 implant (Ø3.3 mm) was removed. Throughout the observation period, minimal CBL changes (i.e., <1 mm) were detected between groups. Despite the positive aesthetic scores recorded (i.e., 1-2), at T3 20% of patients rehabilitated with a Ø3.3 mm versus 2.6% of patients Ø2.9 mm displayed an alveolar process deficiency (Score 3). No additional technical and/or mechanical complications were recorded between T2 and T3. Tooth vitality was maintained in all neighboring teeth. Peri-implant probing depths and plaque scores remained low in both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of 2.9 or 3.3 diameter implants showed comparable favorable mid-term results in terms of survival rate, CBL, and aesthetic outcomes. Hence, clinicians should rely on the use of such NDIs when replacing maxillary lateral incisors.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical, radiographic, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed narrow-diameter implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors (MLIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3 mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9 mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3 mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1 mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The esthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen index score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants Ø0.9 mm (n = 50) or Ø3.3 mm (n = 50) were included. One Ø3.3 mm implant was lost, and seven patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a. CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = .342). Good to excellent esthetic scores (i.e., 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e., loss of retention, abutment fracture, and chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > .05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = .110). CONCLUSION: The use of Ø2.9 mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as Ø3.3 mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable esthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.
