Implant supported overdentures in Sjögren's disease patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively investigate patient-reported outcomes and clinical performance of implant supported overdentures in edentulous Sjögren's disease (SjD) patients compared to subjects without SjD. METHODS: 51 implants were placed in 12 patients with SjD and 50 implants in 12 non-SjD patients to support overdentures. Clinical performance, marginal bone-level changes, patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were assessed at 1 (T1), 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months after placement of the overdenture. Patient satisfaction, ability to chew and OHRQoL were assessed with validated questionnaires. Marginal bone-level changes were measured on standardised dental radiographs. Clinical parameters included implant and overdenture survival, plaque, bleeding and gingival indices, and probing depth. RESULTS: OHRQoL in patients with SjD improved significantly after placement of implant supported overdentures at all measuring moments compared to baseline (p<0.05). Nevertheless, ability to chew tough and hard food was significantly better for non-SjD patients at all timepoints after placement of an implant supported overdenture (p<0.05). Implant survival at T18 was 100% in the patients with SjD and 98% in the non-SS group. Mean marginal bone loss at T18 did not differ between patients with SjD and non-SS patients, 1.12±0.74 mm and 1.43±1.66 mm, respectively (p=0.58). Clinical performance was good with no differences between the groups for all outcome measures (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-supported overdentures have a positive effect on OHRQoL and dental implants can be successfully applied in edentulous patients with SjD with nearly similar outcomes as in non-SjD subjects.

Dental implants in dentate primary and secondary Sjögren's syndrome patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the clinical performance and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in dentate patients with primary and secondary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS and sSS, respectively) compared to patients without SS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven implants were placed in 17 patients with pSS/sSS and 26 implants in 17 non-SS patients to replace missing (pre)molars. Clinical performance, marginal bone-level changes, patient satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were assessed at 1 (T1), 6 (T6), 12 (T12), and 18 (T18) months after placement of the superstructure. Marginal bone-level changes were measured on standardized dental radiographs. Clinical parameters included implant and crown survival, plaque, bleeding and gingival indices, and probing depth. Patient satisfaction and OHRQoL were assessed with validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Implant survival at T18 was 100% in the patients with pSS/sSS and 96.2% in the non-SS group. Mean marginal bone loss at T18 did not differ between patients with pSS/sSS and non-SS patients, 1.10 ± 1.04 and 1.04 ± 0.75 mm, respectively (p = .87). Clinical performance was good with no differences between the groups for all outcome measures (p > .05). OHRQoL in patients with pSS/sSS had improved significantly after placement of implant supported crowns at all measuring moments compared to baseline (p < .05). Nevertheless, patient satisfaction and OHRQoL remained significantly higher for patients without SS at all measuring moments (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Dental implants can be successfully applied in dentate patients with pSS/sSS and have a positive effect on OHRQoL.

Effect of connective tissue grafting on peri-implant tissue in single immediate implant sites: A RCT.

AIM: To assess the effect of connective tissue grafting on the mid-buccal mucosal level (MBML) of immediately placed and provisionalized single implants in the maxillofacial aesthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a failing tooth were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. During implant placement, patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). Follow-up visits were at one (T1 ) and twelve months (T12 ) after final crown placement. The primary outcome measure was any change in MBML compared to the pre-operative situation. In addition, gingival biotype, aesthetics (using the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score), marginal bone level, soft tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: The mean MBML change at T12 was -0.5 ± 1.1 mm in the control group and 0.1 ± 0.8 mm in the test group (p = .03). No significant differences regarding other outcome variables were observed, neither was gingival biotype associated with a gain or loss in MBML. CONCLUSIONS: This one-year study shows that connective tissue grafting in single, immediately placed and provisionalized implants leads to less recession of the peri-implant soft tissue at the mid-buccal aspect, irrespective of the gingival biotype (www.trialregister.nl: TC3815).

Papillary fill response in single-tooth implants using abutments of different geometry.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of abutment geometry on papillary fill in the esthetic zone in a delayed crown protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects received two non-adjacent endosseous implants in the esthetic zone. Functional temporary crowns were installed 17-19 weeks later, using conventional (control) and curved (experimental) abutments. The abutments were randomized in each patient independently. Final crowns were cemented after 2 months (T0). Standard intraoral photographs and radiographs were made to evaluate papillary fill after 12 months (T12). The interproximal papilla fill was measured by means of the papilla index score (PIS) and related to the maximum bone level between the implant and the adjacent root as well as the peri-implant marginal bone level at T12, both measured radiographically. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group could be demonstrated (P = 0.25). Ordinal regression analysis showed a positive correlation between the maximum bone level and papilla fill (P < 0.01) and a negative correlation between the peri-implant marginal bone level and papilla fill (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A concave abutment does not exhibit a better fill of the papilla compared with a straight abutment in single-tooth implant placement using a delayed protocol in the esthetic zone after 12 months of function.

Performance of the Straumann Bone Level Implant system for anterior single-tooth replacements in augmented and nonaugmented sites: a prospective cohort study with 60 consecutive patients.

AIM: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate radiographic, clinical and aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction of cases treated with platform-switched single implant restorations in the aesthetic region of the maxilla. Furthermore, the influence of an augmentation procedure 3 months before implant placement and the type of restoration (screw-retained vs. cement-retained) was evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were treated with a Straumann Bone Level Implant. Bone augmentation was performed in 29 patients at 3 months before implant placement. Implants were loaded after 3 months of submerged healing. Follow-up was conducted at 7 and 18 months after implant placement. Peri-implant mucosa and implant crown aesthetic outcomes were determined using the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI) and the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). RESULTS: No implants were lost. At 18 months after implant placement, mean bone level change was -0.10 ± 0.27 mm and mean probing pocket depth was 2.57 mm. No differences were found between augmented and nonaugmented sites (P = 0.28). The ICAI indicated satisfactory mucosa and crown aesthetics in 67% and 75% of the cases, respectively, while the PES score was 14.4. ICAI mucosa (P = 0.004) and PES (P = 0.02) scores were significantly less favourable for augmented sites compared with nonaugmented sites. Patient satisfaction was high (8.9 ± 1.1 on VAS-score). CONCLUSIONS: From the present prospective, clinical study, it can be concluded that the Straumann Bone Level Implant shows an excellent survival rate, marginal bone stability and good clinical and aesthetic results. Bone augmentation before implant placement does not lead to more marginal bone loss. However, less favourable pink aesthetic outcomes were found in augmented sites compared with nonaugmented sites, while no differences were found between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations.

Immediate non-occlusal loading of single implants in the aesthetic zone: a randomized clinical trial.

AIM: this study compared the outcome of immediate non-occlusal loading with conventional loading for single implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone. It was hypothesized that immediate non-occlusal loading is not inferior to conventional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: sixty-two patients with a missing maxillary anterior tooth were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant that was either restored with a non-occluding temporary crown within 24 h after implant placement (the "immediate group") or was restored according to a two-stage procedure after 3 months (the "conventional group"). All implants were installed in healed sites. Follow-up visits were conducted after 6 and 18 months post-implant placement. Outcome measures were radiographic marginal bone-level changes, survival, soft tissue aspects (probing depth, plaque, bleeding, soft tissue level), aesthetics and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: no significant differences were found between both study groups regarding marginal bone loss (immediate group 0.91 ± 0.61 mm, conventional group 0.90 ± 0.57 mm), survival (immediate group 96.8%: one implant lost, conventional group 100%), soft tissue aspects, aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: within the limitations of this study (sample size, follow-up duration), it was demonstrated that, for single implants in the anterior maxilla, the outcome of immediate non-occlusal loading was not less favourable than conventional loading.

A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient.

AIM: This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature, the estimated implant survival rate of short (<10 mm) dental implants installed in partially edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases of MEDLINE (1980-October 2009) and EMBASE (1980-October 2009) to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the articles using specific study design-related quality assessment forms. RESULTS: Twenty-nine methodologically acceptable studies were selected. A total of 2611 short implants (lengths 5-9.5 mm) were analysed. An increase in implant length was associated with an increase in implant survival (from 93.1% to 98.6%). Heterogeneity between studies was explored by subgroup analyses. The cumulative estimated failure rate of studies performed in the maxilla was 0.010 implants/year, compared with 0.003 found in the studies in the mandible. For studies that also included smokers, the failure rate was 0.008 compared with 0.004 found in studies that excluded smokers. Surface topography and augmentation procedure were not sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: There is fair evidence that short (<10 mm) implants can be placed successfully in the partially edentulous patient, although with a tendency towards an increasing survival rate per implant length, and the prognosis may be better in the mandible of non smoking patients.

Treatment outcome of two adjacent implant crowns with different implant platform designs in the aesthetic zone: a 1-year randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To evaluate the peri-implant tissues in patients with two adjacent implant crowns in the aesthetic zone, treated with either two adjacent implants with a scalloped platform or with a flat platform. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients were randomly allocated to: (1) a "scalloped implant group": 20 patients treated with two adjacent implants with a scalloped platform, and (2) a "flat implant group": 20 patients treated with two adjacent implants with a flat platform. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed during a 1-year follow-up period to assess hard and soft tissue changes. RESULTS: The scalloped implant group showed significantly more marginal bone loss (scalloped: 2.7±1.4 mm, flat: 0.9±0.8 mm) and more inter-implant bone crest loss (scalloped: 1.8±1.4, flat: 1.0±0.9 mm) than the flat implant group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the papilla index and patients' satisfaction. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of function, there was more bone loss around scalloped implants than around flat implants. With regard to the presence of papilla, there were no differences between the groups. With both applied implant designs, it is difficult to establish a predictable and harmonious aesthetic result, especially regarding the peri-implant mucosa. Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetic outcome of the adjacent implants irrespective of the treatment concept applied.

Single implants with different neck designs in the aesthetic zone: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare single implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs for marginal bone-level changes and clinical outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a 1.5 mm smooth neck ("smooth group"), a moderately rough neck with grooves ("rough group") or a scalloped moderately rough neck with grooves ("scalloped-group"). Implants were installed in healed sites and were loaded after 3 months. Follow-up visits were conducted at 6 and 18 months after implant placement. RESULTS: The scalloped group showed significantly more radiographic bone loss from implant placement to 18 months (2.01 ± 0.77 mm) compared with the smooth group (1.19 ± 0.82 mm) and rough group (0.9 ± 0.57 mm). Furthermore the scalloped group showed significantly deeper pocket depths and a higher bleeding score. There were no between-group differences in soft tissue levels. Survival rates were 97% for the smooth group and 100% for the rough and scalloped groups (P>0.05). No significant differences in outcome were found between the smooth group and rough group. CONCLUSION: For anterior tooth replacements, implants with a scalloped neck showed more marginal bone loss and less favourable clinical outcome compared with implants with a 1.5 mm smooth neck or implants with a rough neck.

Augmentation in proximity to the incisive foramen to allow placement of endosseous implants: a case series.

PURPOSE: To assess whether augmentation in the proximity of the incisive foramen with an intraoral bone graft to allow for reliable placement of implants is achievable, not jeopardizing the nasopalatine nerve and vessels in a way causing patients' distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five patients who had lost a central maxillary incisor due to trauma, and in whom a deficiency of bone at the palatal side was present in the proximity of the incisal canal, were augmented with autogenous cancellous bone harvested from the retromolar region. After a healing period of 3 months, implants were inserted. Patients' acceptance, complications, and postoperative morbidity of the procedure were prospectively evaluated by standardized clinical and radiographic examinations up to 12 months after augmentation. RESULTS: At the time of implant surgery, in all cases there was sufficient bone for insertion of the implants with adequate primary stability. Up to now (follow-up of 12-15 months) no fixtures have been lost and all peri-implant tissues have a healthy appearance. All patients were satisfied. CONCLUSION: Augmentation in the proximity of the incisive foramen to enable implant placement appears to be feasible, both from the perspective of the patient and the professional.

Trauma to an implant-supported crown that was saved by the fixation screw: a case report.

A traumatic impact to an implant-supported crown might damage the implant, restoration and peri-implant tissues. Ideally, only a small prosthetic retreatment is needed for restoration, as complicated prosthetic retreatments or surgical retreatments in particular, could be very inconvenient for the patient. However, there is a deficiency in literature on how the implant, restoration and surrounding tissues generally react to impact forces. This report demonstrates a case of trauma to an implant-supported crown in the maxillary anterior zone resulting in a displacement of the implant crown. After careful examination and follow-up, it appeared that only the fixation screw was damaged, whereas the implant, restoration and peri-implant tissues remained unharmed. Thanks to the protective qualities of the implant system, an easy prosthetic retreatment could restore the implant-supported crown and a surgical retreatment was prevented.

Immediate loading and customized restoration of a single implant in the maxillary esthetic zone: a clinical report.

The replacement of a single missing anterior tooth with an implant-supported crown is a demanding therapy. This report describes a treatment in which an anterior maxillary implant was immediately restored with a provisional restoration. During the provisional phase, an optimal emergence profile was created by adjusting the provisional restoration. An impression was made with an individually fabricated impression post for an accurate reproduction of the established emergence profile and, finally, a screw-retained all-ceramic crown was placed. By implementing this protocol, an optimal definitive result could be achieved, together with immediate patient satisfaction. However, cooperation among several disciplines and careful patient selection were required.

Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction.

AIM: This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature, the outcome of single-implant restorations in the aesthetic zone with natural adjacent teeth, thereby addressing immediate, early and conventional implant approaches. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE (1950-2008), EMBASE (1966-2008), and CENTRAL (1800-2008) were searched to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using specific study-design-related assessment forms. RESULTS: Out of 86 primarily selected articles, 19 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis showed an overall survival rate of 95.5% [95% confidence interval: (93.0-97.1)] after 1 year. A stratified meta-analysis revealed no differences in survival between immediate, early and conventional implant strategies. Little marginal peri-implant bone resorption was found together with low incidence of biological and technical complications. No significant differences in outcome measures were reported in clinical trials comparing immediate, early or conventional implant strategies. CONCLUSION: The included literature suggested that promising short-term results could be achieved for immediate, early and conventional single-implants in the aesthetic zone. However, important parameters as aesthetic outcome, soft-tissue aspects, and patient satisfaction were clearly underexposed. The question whether immediate and early single-implant therapies would result in better treatment outcomes remained inconclusive due to lack of well-designed controlled clinical studies.

Anterior single implants with different neck designs: 5 Year results of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The design of the implant neck might be significant for preservation of marginal bone. PURPOSE: To compare the 5-year radiographic and clinical outcome of single anterior implants provided with a smooth neck, a rough neck or a scalloped rough neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 93 Patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were included. At random, patients received an implant with a 1.5 mm smooth neck ("smooth group"), a rough neck with grooves ("rough group") or a scalloped rough neck with grooves ("scalloped group"). Implants were installed in healed sites. Follow-up visits were conducted after final crown delivery and 1 year and 5 years later. RESULTS: Scalloped implants showed significantly more initial marginal bone resorption. The total amount of bone loss was 1.26 ± 0.90 mm in the smooth group, 1.20 ± 1.1 mm in the rough group and 2.28 ± 0.97 mm in the scalloped group (P < .05). Survival rates were 96.2% for the smooth and scalloped group and 100% for the rough group. Scalloped implants showed deeper pocket depths, more bleeding and more technical complications. There were no differences in esthetic outcome nor in patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: For anterior single tooth replacements, scalloped implants show less favorable radiographic and clinical outcome compared to regular implants with a smooth neck or rough neck.

Immediate Loading of Anterior Single-Tooth Implants Placed in Healed Sites: Five-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year outcome of immediate loading with that of conventional loading for anterior single-tooth implants placed in healed sites. It was hypothesized that immediate loading is not inferior to conventional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 62 patients with a missing maxillary anterior tooth were included. At random, patients were treated with an implant that was restored either with a nonoccluding temporary crown within 24 hours after implant placement (immediate group) or according to a two-stage procedure after 3 months (conventional group). All implants were placed in healed sites. Follow-up visits were performed after definitive crown delivery and 1 and 5 years thereafter. Outcome measures were radiographic marginal bone level changes, implant survival, complications, soft tissue aspects (probing depth, plaque, bleeding, soft tissue level changes), esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Three patients in each study group were lost to follow-up. No significant differences were found in terms of marginal bone loss (1.16 ± 0.93 mm in the immediate group and 1.20 ± 1.10 mm in the conventional group), survival (one implant lost in the immediate group), complications, soft tissue aspects, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: For anterior single-tooth implants placed in healed sites, the outcome of immediate loading is not inferior to conventional loading.

Significance of buccopalatal implant position, biotype, platform switching, and pre-implant bone augmentation on the level of the midbuccal mucosa.

This study assessed whether buccopalatal implant position, biotype, platform switching, and pre-implant bone augmentation affects the level of the midbuccal mucosa (MBM). Ninety patients with a single-tooth implant in the esthetic zone were included. The level of the MBM was measured on photographs taken 1 year after crown placement. The factors analyzed only explained 22% of the level of the MBM. The more an implant was placed to the buccal, the more the MBM was positioned apically. A comparable phenomenon was observed in cases with a thick biotype and cases that underwent pre-implant bone augmentation. Platform switching did not affect the level of the MBM.

Comparison of two different abutment designs on marginal bone loss and soft tissue development.

PURPOSE: To assess the response of soft tissues around two different abutment designs in healed sites in the esthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects received two endosseous implants in healed, bilateral implant sites in the esthetic zone in the maxilla or the mandible. After 17 to 19 weeks and left/right randomization, the implants were restored with either a conventional (control) or curved (experimental) titanium abutment and a provisional crown. Eight weeks after abutment placement, definitive crowns were cemented (T0). Soft tissue development was assessed based on peri-implant bone loss, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), and probing depths immediately after placement of the definitive crown and after 1 year (T12) and compared between sites. Possible confounding variables (abutment angle, plaque presence, gingival bleeding, width of attached mucosa) were also documented at T0 and T12. RESULTS: The mean peri-implant marginal bone loss from T0 to T12 was 0.00 ± 0.37 mm in the experimental group and 0.12 ± 0.27 mm in the control group. Differences were not statistically significant (P = .25). At T12, the curved abutment scored a mean PES of 10 ± 2.3 and the straight abutment scored 9.7 ± 2.3. The difference was not significant (P = .46)). Probing depths were also not significantly different between the two groups (P = .85). Correlation and regression analysis showed no hints of predictive behavior for the possible confounding variables. CONCLUSION: A titanium abutment with a circumferential curved design is of no additional benefit to soft tissue development and preservation of marginal bone compared to a conventional straight abutment design for the restoration of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone.

Immediate placement of dental implants in the esthetic zone: a systematic review and pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Research interest on immediate placement of dental implants has shifted from implant survival toward optimal preservation of soft and hard tissues. The aim of this study is to systematically assess the condition of implant survival, peri-implant hard and soft tissue changes, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction of immediately placed single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for publications up to June 2013. Studies reporting on implant survival, changes in hard and soft peri-implant tissues, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were considered. A pooled analysis was performed to identify factors associated with survival and peri-implant tissue changes after immediate implant placement. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were considered eligible. Immediate placement of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone was accompanied by excellent 1-year implant survival (97.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.958 to 0.980). Mean marginal peri-implant bone loss was 0.81 ± 0.48 mm, mean loss of interproximal peri-implant mucosa level was 0.38 ± 0.23 mm, and mean loss of peri-implant midfacial mucosa level was 0.54 ± 0.39 mm. Regression analysis revealed that delayed provisionalization (odds ratio [OR] 58.03, 95% CI: 8.05 to 418.41, P <0.000), use of a flap (OR 19.87, 95% CI: 10.21 to 38.66, P <0.000), and use of a connective tissue graft (OR 4.56, 95% CI: 1.72 to 12.08, P <0.002) were associated with marginal peri-implant bone-level change >0.50 mm. Because of underreporting, esthetic results and patient outcome did not allow for reliable analysis. CONCLUSION: Immediate placement with immediate provisionalization of dental implants in the esthetic zone results in excellent short-term treatment outcome in terms of implant survival and minimal change of peri-implant soft and hard tissue dimensions.

Single-tooth implants with different neck designs: a randomized clinical trial evaluating the aesthetic outcome.

AIM: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a smooth neck, a rough neck with grooves or a scalloped rough neck with grooves. Implants were installed in healed sites. One year after definitive crown placement (18 months post-implant placement), photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to two objective aesthetic indexes: pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and implant crown aesthetic index (ICAI). A questionnaire was used to assess the aesthetic outcome and general satisfaction from a patient's perception. standardized radiographs were taken to measure marginal bone level changes. RESULTS: One implant was lost. Although there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss between the different implant neck designs (smooth neck 1.19±0.82mm, rough neck 0.90±0.57mm, scalloped neck 2.01±0.77mm), there were no differences in aesthetic outcome. According to the professional's assessments using PES/WES and ICAI, 79.3% and 62% of the cases showed acceptable crown aesthetics, and 59.8% and 56.5% of the cases showed acceptable mucosa aesthetics. Overall, patients were satisfied about the aesthetics of the mucosa (81.5%) and crown (93.3%), and general patient satisfaction was high (9.0±1.0 out of a maximum of 10). According to the professional's assessment, a pre-implant augmentation procedure was associated with less favorable aesthetics of the mucosa. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the aesthetics of single-tooth implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone appears to be independent of the implant neck designs applied but dependent on the need for pre-implant surgery.

Comparison of implant-supported crown length measured on digitized casts and intraoral radiographs.

Correct measurement of crown length is important for calculating the crown-implant ratio. The aim of this study was to compare the length of implant-supported crowns measured on digitized casts and intraoral radiographs. Crown lengths were studied in 50 patients with 86 implant-supported crowns in the posterior region. The mean length of implant-supported crowns was 9.83 ± 1.72 mm on three-dimensional models and 10.99 ± 1.91 mm on radiographs, which is a statistically significant difference (P < .001). It can be concluded that a new gold standard for crown measurement should be defined.