Esthetically driven immediate provisionalization in the anterior zone: 5-year results from a prospective study evaluating 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants.
Alveolar ridge
Esthetics
Immediate loading
Permanent dental restoration
Tapered-body implant
Torque
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2024
31 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
31
01
2024
accepted:
14
07
2024
medline:
31
7
2024
pubmed:
31
7
2024
entrez:
31
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evaluate the 5-year safety and efficacy of a narrow-diameter (3.0 mm) implant that was immediately provisionalized with a single crown in the maxillary lateral incisor or mandibular central or lateral incisor area. An open, prospective, single-cohort, multicenter study was conducted, in which narrow-diameter implants were placed in fresh, healed extraction, or congenitally missing sites. All patients were required to meet strict criteria for immediate loading. The primary endpoints were marginal bone levels (MBL) and MBL changes (MBLC) from implant placement to 5-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints included cumulative 5-year survival and success rates, soft tissue health, and esthetic parameters. A total of 91 implants were placed in 77 patients. The mean MBL remained stable from the 1-year (- 0.79 ± 0.73 mm, n = 75) to 5-year (- 0.74 ± 0.87 mm, n = 65) follow-up. A marginal bone gain of 0.11 ± 0.83 mm was observed from the 1-year to 5-year follow-up. The cumulative 5-year survival rate was 96.5%, and the cumulative 5-year success rate was 93%. The clinical parameters, including the modified plaque index, modified sulcus bleeding index, Jemt's papilla index, and pink esthetic score improved throughout the 5-year study. The study demonstrated that narrow-diameter implants represent a safe and predictable treatment option for subjects suitable for immediate loading and with limited bone volume or limited inter-dental space. Narrow-diameter implants with immediate provisionalization can be considered for use to restore missing or damaged teeth with predictable functional and esthetic outcomes. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02184845).
Identifiants
pubmed: 39083185
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05832-x
pii: 10.1007/s00784-024-05832-x
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02184845']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
460Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Angkaew C, Serichetaphongse P, Krisdapong S, Dart MM, Pimkhaokham A (2017) Oral health-related quality of life and esthetic outcome in single anterior maxillary implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1089–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12922
doi: 10.1111/clr.12922
pubmed: 27412520
Jokstad A, Alkumru H (2014) Immediate function on the day of surgery compared with a delayed implant loading process in the mandible: a randomized clinical trial over 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12279
doi: 10.1111/clr.12279
pubmed: 24148020
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV (2013) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews (Online) 3:CD003878. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003878.pub5
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003878.pub5
Pozzi A, Mura P (2016) Immediate Loading of conical connection implants: Up-to-2-Year Retrospective Clinical and Radiologic Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31:142–152. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4061
doi: 10.11607/jomi.4061
pubmed: 26800171
De Rouck T, Collys K, Wyn I, Cosyn J (2009) Instant provisionalization of immediate single-tooth implants is essential to optimize esthetic treatment outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:566–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01674.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01674.x
pubmed: 19302238
Weigl P, Strangio A (2016) The impact of immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants on hard and soft tissues in the anterior maxilla. Eur J Oral Implantol 9(Suppl 1):S89–106
pubmed: 27314114
Araujo MG, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J (2006) Modeling of the buccal and lingual bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:606–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01315.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01315.x
pubmed: 17092217
Cadenas-Vacas G, Martinez-Rodriguez N, Barona-Dorado C, Sanchez-Labrador L, Cortes-Breton Brinkmann J, Meniz-Garcia C, Martinez-Gonzalez JM (2021) Calcium phosphate modified with Silicon vs. bovine hydroxyapatite for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: densitometric evaluation, morphological changes and histomorphometric study. Mater (Basel) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14040940
Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A (2003) Bone healing following immediate versus delayed placement of titanium implants into extraction sockets: a prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:189–199
pubmed: 12705296
Chen ST, Buser D (2009) Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:186–217
pubmed: 19885446
Crespi R, Cappare P, Crespi G, Gastaldi G, Romanos GE, Gherlone E (2018) Tissue remodeling in Immediate Versus delayed prosthetic restoration in Fresh Socket implants in the Esthetic Zone: four-year follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 38:s97–s103. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3123
doi: 10.11607/prd.3123
Ebenezer V, Balakrishnan K, Asir RV, Sragunar B (2015) Immediate placement of endosseous implants into the extraction sockets. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 7:S234–S237. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.155926
doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.155926
pubmed: 26015721
pmcid: 4439681
Villa R, Villa G, Del Fabbro M (2018) Immediate Postextraction Screw-retained partial and full-Arch Rehabilitation: a 3-Year follow-up Retrospective Clinical Study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 38:627–635. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3417
doi: 10.11607/prd.3417
Irinakis T, Wiebe C (2009) Clinical evaluation of the NobelActive implant system: a case series of 107 consecutively placed implants and a review of the implant features. J Oral Implantol 35:283–288. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336-35.6.283
doi: 10.1563/1548-1336-35.6.283
pubmed: 20017644
Lekholm U, Zarb GA (1985) Patient selection and Preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (eds) Book title. Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc, Chicago
van Steenberghe D (1997) Outcomes and their measurement in clinical trials of endosseous oral implants. Ann Periodontol 2:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.1997.2.1.291
doi: 10.1902/annals.1997.2.1.291
pubmed: 9151562
Mombelli A, van Oosten MAC, Schürch E Jr, Lang NP (1987) The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2:145–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.1987.tb00298.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.1987.tb00298.x
pubmed: 3507627
Jemt T (1997) Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 17:326–333
Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G (2005) Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:639–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x
pubmed: 16307569
Zembic A, Johannesen LH, Schou S, Malo P, Reichert T, Farella M, Hammerle CH (2012) Immediately restored one-piece single-tooth implants with reduced diameter: one-year results of a multi-center study. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:49–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02174.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02174.x
pubmed: 21504480
Gonzalez-Valls G, Roca-Millan E, Cespedes-Sanchez JM, Gonzalez-Navarro B, Torrejon-Moya A, Lopez-Lopez J (2021) Narrow Diameter Dental implants as an alternative treatment for atrophic alveolar ridges. Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Mater (Basel) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123234
Galindo-Moreno P, Nilsson P, King P, Worsaae N, Schramm A, Padial-Molina M, Maiorana C (2017) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded narrow-diameter implants: 5-year follow-up of a multicenter prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1584–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13029
doi: 10.1111/clr.13029
pubmed: 28626888
Cehreli M, Sahin S, Akca K (2004) Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. J Dent 32:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2003.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2003.09.003
pubmed: 14749084
Blume O, Wildenhof J, Otto S, Probst FA (2021) Influence of clinical parameters on the Primary Stability of a Tapered Dental Implant: a retrospective analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 36:762–770. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8682
doi: 10.11607/jomi.8682
pubmed: 34411218
Silva GAF, Faot F, Possebon A, da Silva WJ, Del Bel Cury AA (2021) Effect of macrogeometry and bone type on insertion torque, primary stability, surface topography damage and titanium release of dental implants during surgical insertion into artificial bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 119:104515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104515
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104515
pubmed: 33932754
Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B (2018) Narrow-diameter implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 29 Suppl 16:21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13272
doi: 10.1111/clr.13272
Pandey C, Rokaya D, Bhattarai BP (2022) Contemporary concepts in Osseointegration of Dental implants: a review. Biomed Res Int 2022:6170452. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6170452
doi: 10.1155/2022/6170452
pubmed: 35747499
pmcid: 9213185
Kan JY, Roe P, Rungcharassaeng K (2015) Effects of implant morphology on rotational stability during immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30:667–670. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3885
doi: 10.11607/jomi.3885
pubmed: 26009918
Heimes D, Becker P, Pabst A, Smeets R, Kraus A, Hartmann A, Sagheb K, Kammerer PW (2023) How does dental implant macrogeometry affect primary implant stability? A narrative review. Int J Implant Dent 9:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00485-z
doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00485-z
pubmed: 37405709
pmcid: 10323072
Kang SR, Bok SC, Choi SC, Lee SS, Heo MS, Huh KH, Kim TI, Yi WJ (2016) The relationship between dental implant stability and trabecular bone structure using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontal Implant Sci 46:116–127. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2016.46.2.116
doi: 10.5051/jpis.2016.46.2.116
pubmed: 27127692
pmcid: 4848379
Akagawa Y, Sato Y, Teixeira ER, Shindoi N, Wadamoto M (2003) A mimic osseointegrated implant model for three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil 30:41–45. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01002.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01002.x
pubmed: 12485382
Li Z, Kuhn G, von Salis-Soglio M, Cooke SJ, Schirmer M, Muller R, Ruffoni D (2015) In vivo monitoring of bone architecture and remodeling after implant insertion: the different responses of cortical and trabecular bone. Bone 81:468–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.08.017
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2015.08.017
pubmed: 26303288
Otsu Y, Matsunaga S, Furukawa T, Kitamura K, Kasahara M, Abe S, Nakano T, Ishimoto T, Yajima Y (2021) Structural characteristics of the bone surrounding dental implants placed into the tail-suspended mice. Int J Implant Dent 7:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00374-3
doi: 10.1186/s40729-021-00374-3
pubmed: 34467429
pmcid: 8408301
Moustafa A, Sugiyama T, Prasad J, Zaman G, Gross TS, Lanyon LE, Price JS (2012) Mechanical loading-related changes in osteocyte sclerostin expression in mice are more closely associated with the subsequent osteogenic response than the peak strains engendered. Osteoporos Int 23:1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1656-4
doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1656-4
pubmed: 21573880
Misch C, Strong JT, Bidez MW (2008) Scientific rationale for dental implant design. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. Elsevier, New Delhi
den Hartog L, Raghoebar GM, Stellingsma K, Vissink A, Meijer HJ (2011) Immediate non-occlusal loading of single implants in the aesthetic zone: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 38:186–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01650.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01650.x
Apostolov N, Chakalov I, Drajev T (2014) Measurement of the Maximum Bite Forceinthe Natural dentition with aGnathodynamometer. Med Inf :70–75
Atieh MA, Payne AG, Duncan WJ, Cullinan MP (2009) Immediate restoration/loading of immediately placed single implants: is it an effective bimodal approach? Clinical Oral Implants Research 20:645 – 59. doi: CLR1725 [pii] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01725.x
Furhauser R, Mailath-Pokorny G, Haas R, Busenlechner D, Watzek G, Pommer B (2015) Esthetics of Flapless single-tooth implants in the Anterior Maxilla using guided surgery: Association of three-Dimensional Accuracy and Pink Esthetic score. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:e427–e433. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12264
doi: 10.1111/cid.12264
pubmed: 25346154
Kolinski M, Hess P, Leziy S, Friberg B, Bellucci G, Trisciuoglio D, Wagner W, Moergel M, Pozzi A, Wiltfang J, Behrens E, Zechner W, Vasak C, Weigl P (2018) Immediate provisionalization in the esthetic zone: 1-year interim results from a prospective single-cohort multicenter study evaluating 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants. Clin Oral Invest 22:2299–2308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2329-2
doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2329-2
Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U (2014) Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions–a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 Suppl:84–98. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1
doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1
pubmed: 24660192
Weigl P, Saarepera K, Hinrikus K, Wu Y, Trimpou G, Lorenz J (2019) Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design. Clin Oral Investig 23:1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2531-x
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2531-x
pubmed: 29946832