Aesthetic outcomes of non-functional immediately restored single post-extraction implants with and without connective tissue graft: A multicentre randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the 1-year aesthetic results of flapless single implants, placed in fresh extraction sockets with bone replacement and immediate provisional restoration with or without a connective tissue graft (CTG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present study proposes a partially blinded multicentre parallel randomized controlled trial, where computer-generated tables were used for central randomization to allocate treatments. A total of 59 of the 60 patients screened by eight private practices in Northern Italy fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Immediate implants were placed in a fresh extraction socket with a non-functional immediate provisional restoration with (Test group) or without (Control group) a CTG. The primary outcome variable was the implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI) at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: ICAI for the 59 randomized patients (Test group = 31, Control group = 28) at the 1-year follow-up was 4.69 (95% CI = 3.16-6.22) for the Test group and 3.45 (95% CI = 1.83-5.08) for the Control group, without statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = .086). One implant failure was recorded in each group, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.8% [95% CI = 83.3-99.9] for the Test group and 96.4% [95% CI = 81.7-99.9] for the Control group. Other secondary outcome variables and complication rates were comparable across the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present clinical trial, the results suggested that the adjunct use of CTG is not mandatory to achieve successful aesthetic outcomes for a well-planned immediate implant placement with immediate non-functional provisional restoration in a fresh extraction socket.

Immediate provisionalization in the esthetic zone: 1-year interim results from a prospective single-cohort multicenter study evaluating 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this interim analysis of a 5-year prospective multicenter study is to evaluate clinical and radiological performance of immediately provisionalized 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients needing implant rehabilitation of maxillary lateral incisors or mandibular lateral and central incisors were treated with 3.0-mm-diameter implants placed in extraction or healed sites and immediately provisionalized. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at implant insertion, 6 months thereafter, and are ongoing. Marginal bone levels and changes, complications, the papilla, plaque, and bleeding indices, and the pink esthetic score (PES) were evaluated at each follow-up visit. RESULTS: Of 112 enrolled patients, 77 patients (91 implants) met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-one patients with 82 implants completed the 1-year follow-up. Three implants failed yielding a CSR of 96.7%. All failures occurred within the first 3 months after implant insertion. Marginal bone level changes from insertion to 6 months was - 0.57 ± 1.30 mm (n = 75) and from insertion to 12 months - 0.25 ± 1.38 mm (n = 72). Fifteen non-serious complications were recorded. Papilla index score and PES improved at the 1-year follow-up. Plaque formation and bleeding-on-probing showed no statistically significant differences between the 6-month and the 1-year visit. CONCLUSIONS: This 1-year analysis demonstrated high survival, stable bone levels, and healthy soft tissue with 3.0-mm-diameter implants. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Narrow diameter implants are a safe and predictable treatment option in patients with limited bone volume and/or limited interdental space and eligible for immediate loading protocols.

Preaugmentation Soft Tissue Expansion: A Report of Four Pilot Cases.

This pilot study aimed at investigating the safety and feasibility of pre-augmentation soft tissue expansion (STE). Tissue expanders of different sizes (from 240 to 1300 mm3) were implanted subperiosteally in four patients requiring vertical and/or horizontal bone augmentation, and left in situ for 20-60 days, according to the expander size. Guided bone regeneration was carried out after STE completion. Horizontal and vertical bone gains were analyzed through CBCT. Optical scanning and superimposition of cast models were used for volumetric analysis. The mean soft tissue volume increase was 483.8 ± 251.7 mm3. Horizontal bone gain averaged 3 mm in two successfully expanded sites while one case had a vertical bone gain of 8 mm. Despite promising outcomes in bone and soft tissue gain, the present technique needs improvement before being applied routinely in everyday dental practice.

Vertical Bone Augmentation with an Autogenous Block or Particles in Combination with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Clinical and Histological Preliminary Study in Humans.

BACKGROUND: Vertical ridge augmentation with the use of solid bone blocks or particulate bone autograft, exposed or covered by a nonresorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane, are well known in the literature and have been shown to be effective in treating bone atrophy. PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to assess the two techniques in respect to biological properties of transplanted bone in graft revascularization and bone remodeling in conjunction with dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were treated within the study, with a total of 12 sites with posterior mandibular edentulous ridges with insufficient bone to allow implant placement. Bone regeneration was performed using autogenous intraoral block graft or autogenous particulate graft with an ePTFE barrier membrane. At 6-10 months, reentry surgery was performed; bone biopsies, including microscrews, were harvested; and implants were placed. RESULTS: Eleven sites out of 12 healed uneventfully. A mean height gain of 5.03 mm was achieved. Mean bone-to-implant contact and bone fill were assessed by means of histomorphometric analysis. The block specimens revealed a bone-to-implant contact of 42.34%, and the particulate grafts had a bone-to-implant contact of 26.62% (p < .012). Bone fill values reported were 68.32% and 48.28% (p < .019) for block specimens versus particulate grafts. CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly showed that both techniques were clinically successful for subsequent implant placement and prosthetic rehabilitation. The histological outcomes, including revascularization and bone remodeling, of the two techniques differed significantly. The block grafts outperformed the particulate grafts in terms of bone-to-implant contact and bone fill values; however, the morbidity associated with the donor site of the block must be considered.