Aesthetic outcomes of different materials for delayed, single-tooth restorations for immediately placed implants. A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the aesthetic outcomes of metal porcelain (C), lithium disilicate (T1) and porcelain-layered zirconium (T2) immediate implant-supported single crowns in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five immediate dental implants were provided for 45 patients that required the extraction of a single tooth in the anterior maxilla. A temporary prosthesis was provided at 8 weeks after placement followed by the final prosthesis at 24 weeks post-implantation. The patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups: 15 patients in the control group (C) received a metal-porcelain restoration, 15 patients (T1) received a lithium disilicate (LD) restoration and 15 patients (T2) received a porcelain-layered, zirconium (Z) restoration. Pink (PES) and White (WES) esthetic scores, radiographic bone levels, periodontal parameters and patient's esthetic satisfaction using a visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated at the time of final restoration placement (t0) and at 12-months post-loading (t12). RESULTS: No implants were lost during the duration of this study. Statistically significant higher WES and VAS scores (p < 0.05) were recorded in T1 vs C and T1 vs T2 groups respectively. Similar radiographic bone levels and periodontal parameters were recorded in all groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that T1 restorations provided better WES outcomes when compared to C restorations and better VAS scores when compared to T2 restorations at 12 months post-loading. Besides, different material interphases did not have an impact in PES, bone levels or periodontal parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is limited data comparing aesthetic outcomes of implant supported single crowns made of different ceramic materials based on accepted and comparable indexes and the evaluation of the patient's perspective regarding these aesthetic outcomes.

Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm) versus Standard Dental Implants (≥10 mm): A One-Year Post-Loading Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent data have shown that short dental implants can be the preferred treatment in most of cases of posterior atrophic alveolar ridges, offering higher survival and lower complication rates than long implants. The survival rates, stability, and marginal bone level changes were compared between short implants (7 and 8.5 mm) and standard-length implants (≥10 mm). METHODS: Prospective observational study in which adult patients requiring ≥1 osseointegrated implants to replace missing teeth were recruited consecutively. A clinical examination was performed on the day the definitive prosthesis was placed and after 6 and 12 months. Implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone level (MBL) changes, and the correlation between these parameters and the characteristics of the implants were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 99 implants were inserted (47 short, 52 standard) in 74 patients. The 12-month survival rate was 100%. ISQ values showed a similar pattern for both types of implants. No correlation was found between ISQ changes after one year and MBL values, nor between the latter and the characteristics of the implants. CONCLUSIONS: With clinical treatment criteria, shorter implants (7 and 8.5 mm in length) can be just as useful as standard-length implants in atrophic alveolar ridges, demonstrating similar rates of survival, stability, and crestal bone loss.