Your browser doesn't support javascript.
A Biblioteca Cochrane foi excluída da BVS por decisão da Wiley de não renovação da licença de uso com a BIREME. Saiba mais.

BVS Odontologia

Informação e Conhecimento para a Saúde

Home > Pesquisa > ()
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportação:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

Esthetic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes of immediately placed implants (Type 1) and early placed implants (Type 2): preliminary 3-month results of an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial.

Huynh-Ba, Guy; Meister, David J; Hoders, Ashley B; Mealey, Brian L; Mills, Michael P; Oates, Thomas W; Cochran, David L; Prihoda, Thomas J; McMahan, C Alex.
Clin Oral Implants Res; 27(2): 241-52, 2016 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25758100

AIM:

The objective of the study was to compare (i) esthetic, (ii) clinical and (iii) patient-centered outcomes following immediate (Type 1) and early implant placement (Type 2).

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Thirty-eight subjects needing a single extraction (premolar to premolar) were randomly allocated to Type 1 or Type 2 implant placement. Three months following permanent crown insertion, evaluation of (i) esthetic outcomes using soft tissue positions, and the pink and white esthetic scores (PES/WES), (ii) clinical performance using probing pocket depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI) and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) around each implant and (iii) patient satisfaction by means of a questionnaire using a visual analogue scale (VAS) was performed.

RESULTS:

Thirty-two patients completed the 3-month follow-up examination (Type 1, n = 17; Type 2, n = 15) with a 100% implant survival rate. Type 1 implants lost 0.54 ± 0.18 mm of mid-facial soft tissue height, while Type 2 implants lost 0.47 ± 0.31 mm (P > 0.05). The papillae height on the mesial and distal was reduced about 1 mm following both procedures. The PES/WES following Type 1 implant placement amounted to 13.7 ± 0.6 and 12.5 ± 0.7 in the Type 2 group (P > 0.05). PPD, mPI and mSBI were low in both groups (P > 0.05). Patient-centered outcomes failed to demonstrate any statistical difference between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSION:

Three months following final crown delivery, there were no significant differences in esthetic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes following Type 1 and Type 2 implant placement. On the short term, one may achieve good optimal esthetic and clinical results irrespective of these two placement protocols. These results need to be confirmed on the long term.