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.

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).

Mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional implant-supported single-tooth restorations: A laboratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mechanical performance of patient-specific prefabricated temporary shell versus laboratory-fabricated CAD/CAM provisional restorations on titanium temporary abutments, with and without thermo-mechanical ageing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants with a conical connection were divided into four groups (n = 24) and restored with temporary shell or laboratory-fabricated central or lateral incisor PMMA restorations that were relined or bonded on titanium temporary abutments. The diameter of the central and lateral incisor groups' implants was regular (ϕ 4.3 mm) or narrow (ϕ 3.5 mm), respectively. Half of each group's specimens were subjected to ageing, simultaneous thermocycling (5-55°C) and chewing simulation (120,000 cycles, 50 N, 1.7 Hz) resulting in eight groups in total (n = 12). The aged specimens were evaluated with optical microscopy, and survival and complication rates were determined according to modified USPHS criteria. The non-aged specimens and those that had survived ageing were loaded until failure, whereupon bending moments were calculated. RESULTS: Survival rates after ageing were 100% for all groups. Apart from wear facets (ϕ 2-3 mm) on the palatal restoration surface, no complications were observed. The mean fracture load and bending moments ranged between 597.6-847.1 N and 433.3-550.6 Ncm, respectively, with no significant differences between the eight groups (p = .25; p = .20). CONCLUSIONS: As patient-specific temporary shell central and lateral incisor provisional implant-supported restorations are mechanically stable enough to withstand clinical bite forces, even after thermo-mechanical ageing, they may serve as an alternative to laboratory-fabricated provisional restorations.

Single crown restorations supported by 6-mm implants in the resorbed posterior mandible: A 10-year prospective case series.

PURPOSE: To assess marginal bone level changes, implant and restoration survival, condition of the peri-implant mucosa, and the patient's satisfaction with the single restoration supported by a 6-mm long implant in the posterior mandible after 10 years in function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one consecutive patients missing premolars or molars in the posterior mandible, with a bone volume consisting of a width of at least 6 mm and an estimated height of 8 mm between the top of the ridge and alveolar nerve, were included. Each patient received one or more 6-mm implants. After 3 months, the implants were restored with custom-made titanium abutments and cemented zirconia-based porcelain crowns. The clinical examination and radiograph data were assessed at restoration placement and after 12, 60, and 120 months. The patients answered a questionnaire to score their satisfaction before treatment and after 12, 60, and 120 months with the restoration in function. RESULTS: A total of 31 implants were placed. Implant survival was 100%. The 10-year mean marginal bone loss was 0.18 mm (SE: 0.08). The plaque, calculus, gingiva, and bleeding indices scores were low as was the mean pocket probing depth. The patients' satisfaction was high. CONCLUSION: The 10-year follow-up data of this limited case series study reveal that 6-mm dental implants inserted in the resorbed posterior mandible provide a solid basis for single tooth restorations.

Mechanical strength of stock and custom abutments as original and aftermarket components after thermomechanical aging.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the impact on the mechanical strength and failure patterns of implant-abutment complexes of choosing different abutment types, designs and manufacturers, aiding in selecting the optimal restorative solution. Stock and custom abutments from original and aftermarket suppliers were subjected to thermomechanical aging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stock and custom abutments from the implant manufacturer (original) and a aftermarket supplier (nonoriginal) were connected to identical implants with internal connection. Custom abutments were designed in a typical molar and premolar design, manufactured using the workflow from the respective suppliers. A total of 90 implants (4 mm diameter, 3.4 mm platform, 13 mm length) equally divided across 6 groups (three designs, two manufacturers) underwent thermo-mechanical aging according to three different regimes, simulating five (n = 30) or 10 years (n = 30) of clinical function, or unaged control (n = 30). Subsequently, all samples were tested to failure. RESULTS: During aging, no failures occurred. The mean strength at failure was 1009N ± 171, showing significant differences between original and nonoriginal abutments overall (-230N ± 27.1, p < .001), and within each abutment type (p = .000), favoring original abutments. Aging did not significantly affect the failure load, while the type of abutment and manufacturer did, favoring original and custom-designed abutments. The most common failure was implant bending or deformation, significantly differing between original and nonoriginal abutments and screws. All failure tests resulted in clinically unsalvageable implants and abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, original abutments exhibited a higher mechanical strength compared to the nonoriginal alternative, regardless of the amount of simulated clinical use. Similarly, custom abutments showed higher mechanical strength compared to stock abutments. However, mechanical strength in all abutments tested was higher than average chewing forces reported in literature, thus components tested in this study can be expected to perform equally well in clinical situations without excessive force.

Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: A 10-year randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets. The aim of this 10-year randomized controlled trial was to compare peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings of, and patient-reported satisfaction with immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm in the esthetic zone versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation. METHODS: Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect ≥5 mm after an extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate Group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed Group, n = 20) implant placement. The second-stage surgery and provisional restoration placement occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. During a 10-year follow-up period, marginal bone levels (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.59 mm and -0.36 ± 0.39 mm in the Immediate Group and the Delayed Group after 10 years (p = 0.063), respectively. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm, were not statistically different to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Immediate implant placement in case of a failing tooth is a favorable treatment option for patients because it considerably shortens treatment time and the number of surgical treatments. The question is if an intact buccal bone wall is necessary for immediate implant placement. A 10-year study was performed in which 20 patients with a failing tooth in the frontal region of the upper jaw were treated with immediate implant placement and were compared with 20 patients in whom a more conventional treatment strategy was followed in which the failing tooth was first removed and the bone gap restored and the implant placed in a second step. After a 10-year follow-up period, it appeared that the bone around the implant was very stable, gums were healthy, and patients were very satisfied with the result. There was no difference between the two treatment procedures. Such results mean that professionals can discuss the procedure with the patient and apply the individual's preference.

The Peri-Implant Microbiome-A Possible Factor Determining the Success of Surgical Peri-Implantitis Treatment?

The objective was to assess the effect of peri-implantitis surgery on the peri-implant microbiome with a follow-up of one year. A total of 25 peri-implantitis patients in whom non-surgical treatment has failed to solve peri-implantitis underwent resective surgical treatment. Their peri-implant pockets were sampled prior to surgical treatment (T0) and one year post treatment (T12). The natural dentition was sampled to analyse similarities and differences with the peri-implantitis samples. Treatment success was recorded. The change in microbial relative abundance levels was evaluated. The microbiota was analysed by sequencing the amplified V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA genes. Sequence data were binned to amplicon sequence variants that were assigned to bacterial genera. Group differences were analysed using principal coordinate analysis, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and t-tests. Beta diversity analyses reported a significant separation between peri-implantitis and natural dentition samples on T0 and T12, along with significant separations between successfully and non-successfully treated patients. Eubacterium was significantly lower on T12 compared to T0 for the peri-implantitis samples. Treponema and Eubacterium abundance levels were significantly lower in patients with treatment success on T0 and T12 versus no treatment success. Therefore, lower baseline levels of Treponema and Eubacterium seem to be associated with treatment success of peri-implantitis surgery. This study might aid clinicians in determining which peri-implantitis cases might be suitable for treatment and give a prognosis with regard to treatment success.