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).

Immediate versus early implant placement for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) with early implant placement (EIP) for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area in terms of aesthetic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to February 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with EIP were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue change. Secondary outcomes were horizontal midfacial soft tissue change, vertical papillary change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival, buccal bone thickness, marginal bone level change, patient discomfort, chair time, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Out of 1185 records, 6 RCTs were selected, reporting on 222 patients who received 222 single implants (IIP: 112 implants in 112 patients; EIP: 110 implants in 110 patients) in the anterior maxilla or mandible. Patients had a mean age ranging from 35.6 to 52.6 years and were followed between 8 and 24 months. Two RCTs showed some concerns, and four showed a high risk of bias. Four studies could be included in a meta-analysis on the primary outcome and three only considered cases with an intact buccal bone wall. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in terms of vertical midfacial soft tissue change between IIP and EIP (mean difference: 0.31 mm, 95% CI [-0.23; 0.86], p = .260; I2 = 83%, p < .001). No significant differences were found for PES (standardized mean difference: 0.92, 95% CI [-0.23; 2.07], p = .120; I2 = 89%, p < .001), implant survival (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.93, 1.03], p = .480; I2 = 0%, p = .980), and marginal bone level change (mean difference: 0.03 mm, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.17], p = .700; I2 = 0%, p = .470). Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses of other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In low-risk patients with an intact buccal bone wall, there seems to be no difference between IIP and EIP in terms of aesthetic and clinical outcomes. The strength of this conclusion is rated as low since studies showed an unclear or high risk of bias. In addition, state-of-the-art therapy was only delivered in a minority of studies. Future RCTs should also provide data on patient-reported outcomes since these have been underreported.

A randomized clinical trial on zirconia versus titanium implants in maxillary single tooth replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This RCT aimed to compare zirconia and titanium dental implants in the maxillary premolar region. The comparison was based on marginal bone level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters, aesthetic outcomes, and patient related outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year after prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients were randomly assigned to receive either a zirconia (ZrO2, n = 25) implant or a titanium (Ti, n = 25) bone-level implant. Implants were provided with a lithium disilicate crown 3 months after placement. Follow-up was at 1 month and after 1 year. The primary outcome pertained to changes in MBL. Reported secondary outcomes consisted of implant survival, peri-implant tissue health, aesthetics, and PROMs. RESULTS: Mean MBL change after 1 year was 0.01 mm (SD = 0.45; min = 0.72, max = 0.86) for ZrO2 and -0.09 mm (SD = 0.34; min = 0.53, max = -1.06) for Ti (p = .439). Scores for the other clinical outcome parameters and PROMs were generally favorable, with no significant differences. However, significant differences were found for the aesthetic outcomes regarding two criteria: (a) level of facial mucosa (p = .022), in favor of Ti, and (b) root convexity/soft tissue color and texture (p = .005) in favor of ZrO2. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The ZrO2 and Ti implant types used in this study, replacing a single missing maxillary premolar, show a comparable outcome in terms of MBL change after 1 year. Clinical and aesthetic parameters, as well as PROMs, are favorable and similar between both implant types after 1 year of prosthetic loading. These short-term study results suggest that both are suitable for clinical use.

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.

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 biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) for immediate posterior implant placement, immediate provisionalization, and definitive implant crown fabrication: A complete digital workflow.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate implants and immediate alveolar sealing have been a widely utilized treatment with high predictability and biological advantages. The improvement in technology has made it possible to simplify clinical processes. The aim of the present report was to describe the complete digital workflow of the Biologically oriented preparation technique for immediate posterior implant, immediate provisionalization and fabrication of definitive implant crowns. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The surgical process and prosthetic management to preserve the gingival contours of the extracted natural tooth during immediate implant placement and provisionalization are described. Additionally, during the same clinical intervention, the definitive intraoral digital implant scans for capturing the implant position, peri-implant tissue contours, adjacent and antagonist dentition, and profile emergence of the interim implant crown are captured for the fabrication of the definitive crown. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the technique described, the immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the posterior area provides biological and clinical advantages, reducing the number of abutment-implant disconnections and the number of clinical appointments, as well as increases patient comfort. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The present article describes a technique for an immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the posterior region for maintaining the gingival architecture of the extracted tooth. During the same appointment, the implant position, peri-implant tissue contours, and adjacent and antagonist dentition, and profile emergence of the interim implant crown are captured by using an intraoral scanner and used for the fabrication of the definitive crown. This technique aims to reduce the number of abutment-implant disconnections and clinical appointments.

Coverage stability of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The occurrence of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence, especially in the esthetic zone, can be challenging. This study sought to investigate how the passage of time affects the outcomes of treatment for peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed up to April 2023 via PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to retrieve studies reporting the data on peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence of at least 2-time points (baseline and follow-up). Clinical trials with a minimum of 5 participants, reporting at least 1 primary outcome, and with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included. The primary outcomes were the changes in dehiscence depth, complete coverage, and mean coverage at different time points. RESULTS: Seven studies with 112 participants and 119 implants were included. Dehiscence depth increased insignificantly between 3 to 6 months. Although the dehiscence depth increased from 6 to 12 months in the tunnel group, it decreased in the coronally advanced group, and a slight decrease was observed from 12 to 72 months. Soft tissue thickness was the predictor for soft tissue margin stability. However, no significant relationship was found between the baseline dehiscence depth and complete coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it seems prudent to wait at least 6 months to achieve a stable soft tissue margin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The occurrence of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence, especially in the esthetic zone, can be a challenging complication. It is important not only to achieve coverage but also to ensure that the treatment results remain stable in the long term, in order to satisfy both patients and clinicians. A reasonable approach would be to wait for at least 6 months to achieve a stable soft tissue margin.

Effects of socket-shield therapy on inter-implant papilla preservation between upper central and lateral incisors: A case series with 3-5 year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Despite significant progress within implant prosthetic therapy, preserving the papilla between two adjacent implants in the esthetic zone, particularly between central and lateral incisors, remains challenging. This case series aims to report a papilla preservation approach between adjacent upper central-lateral incisor implants using the socket-shield technique. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Six patients with natural dentition received unilateral adjacent central-lateral incisor implants with different socket shield configurations. The esthetic outcomes were clinically assessed after 3-5 years of follow-up. Post-operative papilla fill was evaluated on intraoral images compared to baseline characteristics and the contralateral papilla. Papilla height was preserved in all cases, with minimal alterations observed. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present case series, the socket-shield technique demonstrated favorable outcomes in preserving the papilla between adjacent upper central-lateral incisor implants in the midterm follow-up. Clinical studies are warranted to validate these results. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The socket-shield technique seems promising in preserving the inter-implant papilla between adjacent central-lateral incisor implants.

Long-term outcome of implants exhibiting buccal soft tissue dehiscence in the esthetic zone.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing aesthetic demands require that the color and contour of the peri-implant soft tissues be in harmony with the neighboring teeth. Recession, migration toward the apical, is a frequent clinical finding. Its presence can lead to inflammation and increased marginal bone loss. These complications, in addition to affecting the aesthetic results of our treatment, are difficult to treat and can threaten the survival of the implant. There are fewer studies showing the outcome of treatment of soft-tissue defects around implants. The aim of this article is to describe the treatment of a soft-tissue defect around an implant-supported prosthesis treatment, performed on two neighboring implants, in the esthetic zone in a patient with a high smile and to evaluate both the coverage achieved and the patient's esthetic satisfaction. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study showed that a mucogingival approach, using a surgical technique designed for the treatment of alveolar ridge defects, together with tissue management with temporaries and a new restoration, achieved an optimal result. CONCLUSIONS: The case has been closely followed up, for 10 years, and the authors have been able to confirm the long-term stability of the result. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The following paper shows the result of an innovative approach. Connective tissue platform technique, usually performed for soft-tissue augmentation, was used for a defect in soft-tissue dehiscence. The authors followed the results for 10 years, and the results achieved were satisfactory in terms of esthetic.

Orthodontic tooth extrusion to regenerate missing papilla adjacent to maxillary anterior single implants: A 2- to 7-year retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Regeneration of the missing papilla adjacent to single implants in the esthetic zone has always been challenging, despite advances in vertical hard and soft tissue regeneration. Orthodontic tooth extrusion has been shown to effectively gain alveolar bone and gingival tissue. This retrospective study evaluated the effectiveness of orthodontic tooth extrusion on regenerating missing papilla between existing maxillary anterior single implant and its adjacent tooth. METHODS: Patients who underwent orthodontic tooth extrusion to regenerate missing papilla adjacent to a single implant in the esthetic zone were included in this study. The gingival phenotype, orthodontic extrusion movement, proximal bone level, dento-implant papilla level, facial gingival level, mucogingival junction level, and keratinized tissue width, of the extruded tooth were recorded at pre-orthodontic extrusion (T0 ), post-orthodontic extrusion and retention (T1 ), and latest follow-up (T2 ). RESULTS: A total of 17 maxillary single tooth had orthodontic tooth extrusion to regenerate missing papilla adjacent to 14 maxillary anterior single implants in 14 patients. After a mean follow-up time of 48.4 months, implant success rate was 100% (14/14), with none of the orthodontically extruded teeth being extracted. After a mean extrusion and retention period of 14.3 months, a mean orthodontic extrusion movement of 4.62 ± 0.78 mm was noted with a mean proximal bone level gain of 3.54 ± 0.61 mm (77.0% efficacy), dento-implant papilla level gain of 3.98 ± 0.81 mm (86.8% efficacy), and facial gingival tissue gain of 4.27 mm ± 0.55 mm (93.4% efficacy). A mean keratinized tissue width gain of 4.17 ± 0.49 mm with minimal mean mucogingival junction level change of 0.10 ± 0.30 mm were observed. The efficacy of orthodontic eruption movement on dento-implant papilla gain was less in the thin (80.5%) phenotype group when compared with that in the thick (91.5%) phenotype group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the confines of this study, orthodontic extrusion is an effective, noninvasive method in regenerating mid-term stable proximal bone and papilla adjacent to maxillary anterior single implants. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This retrospective study presents a mid-term result on orthodontic extrusion as a mean to regenerate dento-implant papilla defect. The extended retention period following orthodontic extrusion showed stable and efficacious proximal bone and papilla gain.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Complications and treatment errors in implant positioning in the aesthetic zone: Diagnosis and possible solutions.

Incorrect implant positioning can lead to functional and aesthetic compromise. Implant positioning errors can occur in three dimensions: mesiodistal, corono-apical, and orofacial. Treatment solutions to manage adverse outcomes through positioning errors require an understanding of the underlying conditions and of those factors that may have led to the error being committed in the first place. These types of complications usually occur because of human factors. If errors do occur with adverse aesthetic outcomes, they are difficult and sometimes impossible to correct. Connective tissue grafts to reverse recession defects are only feasible in defined situations. The option to remove and replace the implant may be the only recourse, provided the removal process does not further compromise the site. Error in judgment by the clinician.

Critical review on bone grafting during immediate implant placement.

In the last 20 years, immediate implant placement has been proposed as a predictable protocol to replace failing teeth. The research conducted in preclinical and clinical studies have focused on soft and hard tissue changes following tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. Different approaches for hard and soft tissue grafting together with provisional restorations have been proposed to compensate tissue alterations. This review analyzed some relevant clinical and preclinical literature focusing on the impact of bone grafting procedures on immediate implant placement in terms of hard and soft tissue changes, aesthetic results, and patient-related outcomes.

Avoiding errors and complications related to immediate implant placement in the esthetic area with a mucogingival approach.

Immediate implant placement is considered the treatment of choice for single tooth replacement in the esthetic area. However, this treatment is associated with several critical drawbacks related to the inadequate assessment/management of the soft and hard peri-implant tissues and their subsequent remodeling, resulting in peri-implant soft-tissue defects that can lead to impaired esthetic outcomes in time. We describe in detail how the mucogingival approach to immediate implant placement ensures a standard result regardless of the baseline soft-hard tissue situation. Fully guided implant placement guarantees an adequate three-dimensional implant placement, the flap design makes it possible to perform bone augmentation with complete visibility of the area being treated, allows soft tissue augmentation with proper fixation of the connective tissue graft, and the placement of an immediate provisional ensures stabilization of the peri-implant tissues throughout the healing period.

Five-year outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing single-tooth implant-supported restoration with either zirconia or titanium abutments.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of the abutment material (zirconia vs. titanium) on the long-term aesthetic and clinical outcomes of implant-supported restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 30 patients, a single implant-supported restoration with either a zirconia or a titanium abutment was placed in the anterior maxilla (incisors, canines, and bicuspids). Aesthetic (Implant Crown Aesthetic Index or ICAI), clinical, radiographic, and patient-centred outcomes were recorded at baseline (1 month after final restoration), 1 year, and 5 years of follow-up. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02315794). RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects completed the follow-up visits at 1 and 5 years. ICAI values showed statistically significant better aesthetic outcomes when zirconia abutments were used compared to titanium abutments. Between 1 and 5 years, the aesthetic sub-analysis of the crown component worsened but the mucosal sub-analysis improved. There were no significant changes in bone levels, but the plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing depths worsened in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, standard zirconia abutments achieved better aesthetic outcomes, although with similar clinical behaviour.

Clinical efficacy of soft-tissue augmentation on tissue preservation at immediate implant sites: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of soft-tissue augmentation (STA) with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) or an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) on reducing tissue alterations at an immediate implant site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This trial had three groups: (i) immediate implant with SCTG (ICT group); (ii) immediate implant with ADM (IAD group); (iii) immediate implant without STA (control group). Forty-six patients were randomly assigned to each group. Implants were placed at the maxillary anterior or premolar areas and restored after the 6-month visit. Clinical outcomes, including buccal soft-tissue contour, peri-implant mucosal level, soft-tissue thickness and keratinized tissue width, were measured at baseline and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. Radiographic bone levels were measured at baseline and at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. Patient-reported outcomes were also collected. RESULTS: STA procedures increased peri-implant mucosal thickness and maintained buccal soft-tissue contours. Compared to the control group, STA groups did not prevent peri-implant mucosal recession or interproximal bone resorption. Generally, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were detected between the ICT and IAD groups. Most patients were highly satisfied with the immediate implant procedure and outcomes without significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: STA at immediate implant sites enhanced soft-tissue thickness and maintained soft-tissue contours but did not prevent peri-implant mucosal recession or interproximal bone resorption. Long-term follow-up should be performed since these results were reported for only up to 1 year.