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:


Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

Esthetic, clinical, and radiographic outcomes of two surgical approaches for single implant in the esthetic area: 1-year results of a randomized controlled trial with parallel design.

Huynh-Ba, Guy; Hoders, Ashley B; Meister, David J; Prihoda, Thomas J; Mills, Michael P; Mealey, Brian L; Cochran, David L.
Clin Oral Implants Res; 30(8): 745-759, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31099929


The objectives of this study were to compare (a) esthetic, (b) clinical, (c) radiographic, and (d) patient-centered outcomes following immediate (Type 1) and early implant placement (Type 2).


Forty-six subjects needing a single extraction (premolar to premolar) were randomly allocated to Type 1 or Type 2 implant placement. One year following permanent restoration, evaluation of (a) Esthetics using soft tissue positions, and the pink and white esthetic scores (PES/WES), (b) Clinical performance using probing depth, modified plaque index, and sulcus bleeding index (c) Radiographic bone level, and (d) Patient satisfaction by means of visual analogue scales (VAS) was recorded.


Thirty-five patients completed the one-year examination (Type 1, n = 20; Type 2, n = 15). Type 1 implants lost 1.03 ± 0.24 mm (mean ± SE) of mid-facial soft tissue height while Type 2 implants lost 1.37 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.17). The papillae height on the mesial and distal was reduced about 1 mm following both procedures. Frequency of clinical acceptability as defined by PES ≥ 6 (Type 1: 55% vs. Type 2 40%), WES ≥ 6 (Type 1: 45% vs. Type 2 27%) was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). Clinical and radiographic were indicative of peri-implant health. Patient-centered outcomes failed to demonstrate significant differences between the two cohorts.


One year after final restoration, there were no significant differences in esthetic, clinical, radiographic, and patient-centered outcomes following Type 1 and Type 2 implant placement. At one year, patient satisfaction may be achieved irrespective of the two placement protocols.