Immediate functional loading of single implants: a multicenter study with 4 years of follow-up.

Background. In the current scientific literature there are only few studies on the immediate functional loading of single implants. The aim of the present present study was to evaluate the 4-year survival rate, complication rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss (PIMBL) of immediately loaded single implants inserted in healed ridges and fresh post-extraction sites. Methods. Six centers were involved in this prospective study. The surgical and prosthetic protocol was defined in detail, before the start of recruiting patients. Recruitment of patients and performance of surgeries took place between February 2012 and February 2013. Criteria for inclusion were single-tooth gaps in healed ridges and fresh post-extraction sockets. All the fixtures (Anyridge®, Megagen Corporation, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) were functionally loaded immediately after insertion and followed for a period of 4 years. Outcome measures were implant survival, complications and PIMBL. Results. Forty-six patients (18‒73 years of age) were selected. In total, 57 fixtures were placed (10 in fresh post-extraction sockets). After 4 years of functional loading, only one fixture was lost; therefore, high survival rates (97.6% patient-based; 98.1% implant-based) were reported. In addition, a limited incidence of biologic (4.8% patient-based; 3.8% implant-based) and prosthetic (9.7% patient-based; 7.6% implant-based) complications was reported. The overall 4-year PIMBL amounted to 0.38±0.21 mm (healed ridges: 0.4±0.21 mm; fresh post-extraction sockets: 0.33±0.20 mm). Conclusion. Loading single implants immediately seems to be a highly successful treatment modality. However, long-term data are needed to confirm these positive outcomes.

A long-term prospective cohort study on immediately restored single tooth implants inserted in extraction sockets and healed ridges: CBCT analyses, soft tissue alterations, aesthetic ratings, and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies have been published on single implants, long-term data remain scarce. PURPOSE: To evaluate immediately restored single implants after at least 8 years of follow-up in terms of buccal bone, soft tissue alterations, aesthetic ratings, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients who were consecutively treated with an immediately restored single implant installed in an extraction socket (IIT) or a healed ridge (CIT) in the anterior maxilla. Biomaterials were never used. CBCTs were taken at study termination, soft tissue alterations, and Pink Esthetic Score were evaluated between 1 year and study termination using standardized clinical images. Patient satisfaction was also registered. RESULTS: About 11/16 initially treated patients in the IIT cohort (10 men, 6 women; mean age 45) and 18/23 initially treated patients in the CIT cohort (12 men, 11 women; mean age 40) could be evaluated after more than 8 years. A buccal bone wall less than 2 mm was found at all implant sites. A thin buccal bone wall less than 1 mm was found at 42% of the implant sites. In the CIT cohort, 8 patients had a missing buccal bone in the crestal area, although bone was present at the time of surgery. Alveolar process deficiency significantly deteriorated (P ≤ .046), whereas vertical soft tissue levels and PES remained stable over time in both cohorts. Patients expressed high overall satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial dimensional changes may be expected at the buccal aspect of single implants inserted in the premaxilla. As a result, contour augmentation procedures at the time of implant placement should be considered to counteract these bone alterations, even when implants are fully embedded in bone upon insertion.

Clinical Outcome After 8 to 10 Years of Immediately Restored Single Implants Placed in Extraction Sockets and Healed Ridges.

Recent systematic reviews point to the scarcity of single implants followed up longer than 5 years, and the incidence of biologic/technical complications is underreported. This prospective follow-up study documents 8- to 10-year clinical outcomes of immediately restored single implants in extraction sockets (immediate implant treatment [IIT]) and healed bone (conventional implant treatment [CIT]). Patients received a single, chemically modified, moderately rough titanium implant and a provisional crown on the day of surgery in the anterior maxilla (second premolar to second premolar). Provisional crowns were replaced by permanent crowns after 10 weeks. Implant survival, complications, crestal bone changes, plaque score, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were regularly recorded up to 10 years of follow-up. Of 16 patients who underwent IIT, 11 could be evaluated after 8 years. Of the 23 patients who received an implant in healed bone, 18 were finally evaluated. One implant failed in the IIT group at 12 weeks; all implants survived in the CIT group; 38% of the patients experienced at least one complication; 10% had one or more biologic complications, whereas 31% experienced one or more technical complications. There were no significant changes in crestal bone level from 1 to ≥ 8 years of follow-up for either group or between IIT and CIT at any time point (P ≥ .129). Only 6.9% (2 of 29) implants demonstrated progressive bone loss > 2 mm combined with pockets ≥ 6 mm. Immediately restored single implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges demonstrate good long-term outcomes in terms of implant survival, crestal bone loss, and peri-implant health. However, biologic and especially technical complications are common.

Immediate Loading of Single Implants: A 2-Year Prospective Multicenter Study.

The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes of single implants subjected to immediate functional loading. Inclusion criteria were single-tooth placement in postextraction sockets or fully healed sites, and sufficient bone height and width to place an implant of at least 3.5 × 10.0 mm. All implants were functionally loaded immediately after placement and followed for 2 years. Outcome measures were implant survival, complications, and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). A total of 57 implants (38 maxilla, 19 mandible) were placed in 46 patients (23 men, 23 women, aged 18-73 years). Of these, 10 implants were placed in postextraction sockets. One implant failed, in a healed site, giving a patient-based overall 2-year survival rate of 97.6%. The incidence of biologic complications was 1.8%; prosthetic complications amounted to 7.5%. The peri-implant MBL was 0.37 ± 0.22 mm (healed sites: 0.4 mm ± 0.22; postextraction sockets: 0.3 mm ± 0.22). The immediate functional loading of single implants seems to represent a safe and successful procedure. Long-term follow-up studies on a larger sample of patients are needed to confirm these results.

Oral health-related quality of life changes after placement of immediately loaded single implants in healed alveolar ridges or extraction sockets: a 5-year prospective follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of single implants on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is scarcely investigated, especially when combined with immediate placement and loading in extraction sockets. The aim was to describe prospectively the changes of OHRQoL with single implants placed in the esthetic zone in healed ridges or in extraction sockets after 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients, enrolled at three clinical centers, received 102 single implants placed in a healed ridge (n = 54 implants/50 patients) or in extraction sockets (n = 48 implants/46 patients). Implants were immediately provisionalized, and permanent crowns were cemented after 12 weeks. Oral health impact profile questionnaires (OHIP-14) were completed before surgery, after 1 (provisional crown), 6 (permanent crown), 12 and 60 months, respectively. The overall OHIP-14 score pertains to seven domains with two items each and was assessed on a Likert scale of 0-4 (0 = never and 4 = very often). The evolution of the total OHIP-14 score and changes within all OHIP domains over time and between groups were assessed with a linear mixed-effect model analysis. RESULTS: After 5 years, overall implant survival was 98%. The total OHIP-14 score for both groups combined decreased from 0.50 at baseline to 0.17 at 6 months (P < 0.001), indicative of improvement. For both groups, this remained stable up to 5 years (P = 0.41). However, after 5 years, the total OHIP-14 score revealed a statistically significantly higher improvement in the healed group compared with the extraction group (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Missing a single tooth in the maxillary esthetic zone leads to limited OHRQoL problems as reflected by a low overall OHIP score. However, OHRQoL improves less in the extraction group, reflecting that replacing a missing tooth is perceived as more beneficial than replacing a present tooth.

A prospective cohort study on the impact of smoking on soft tissue alterations around single implants.

OBJECTIVES: To compare smokers to non-smokers in terms of soft tissue alterations following single implant treatment in healed bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Non-smoking and smoking patients with sufficient bone volume in need of a single implant in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were consecutively recruited in three centres. Conventional single implant surgery was performed and an immediate provisional crown was installed. Eight to 12 weeks later, the latter was replaced by a permanent one (baseline). Papilla regrowth and midfacial recession was registered after 2 years of function. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 39 non-smokers (21 females; mean age 42) and 46 smokers (22 females; mean age 45). Smokers had three early failures, whereas all implants integrated successfully in non-smokers. Statistically significant papilla regrowth was observed in non-smokers (distal 0.63 mm, mesial 0.76 mm), whereas smokers showed stable papillae (between cohorts: P ≤ 0.025). Midfacial soft tissue level demonstrated statistically significant regrowth in non-smokers (0.53 mm), whereas it remained stable in smokers (between cohorts: P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Smokers failed to demonstrate papilla regeneration and showed more midfacial recession following single implant treatment when compared to non-smokers.

Immediate functional loading of single implants: a 1-year interim report of a 5-year prospective multicentre study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of immediately loaded single implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited at six clinical centres. Inclusion criteria were singletooth replacement in fully healed sites or post-extraction sockets with adequate bone height and width, to place an implant of at least 3.5 mm in diameter and 10.0 mm in length. All implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) were functionally loaded immediately after placement. After 3 months, final crowns were delivered. All implants were followed for 1 year. Outcome measures were: implant stability; complications; peri-implant marginal bone level changes; probing pocket depth. RESULTS: Fifty-seven implants (38 in the maxilla and 19 in the mandible) were placed in 46 patients (23 males, 23 females, aged between 18 to 73 years). Ten implants were placed in post-extraction sockets. Two patients (two implants) withdrew from the study and were classified as drop-outs. At the end of the study, only one implant was lost in a healed site. All the surviving implants were stable, giving an overall 1-year survival rate of 97.7% (patient-based). A few complications (one patient experienced swelling after surgery, two had loosened abutments and another patient had a ceramic crown fracture) were encountered. After 1 year of functional loading, the patients had lost an average of 0.32 mm (± 0.22) of peri-implant marginal bone; the mean probing pocket depth (PPD) was 2.16 mm (± 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Within its limit (limited number of patients treated and self-evaluation of the outcomes), this study supports the concept that immediate functional loading of single dental implants can be a successful treatment procedure, with satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Immediate provisionalization of dental implants in grafted alveolar ridges in the esthetic zone: a 5-year evaluation.

This clinical study assessed at 5 years both implant survival and peri-implant tissue architecture of immediately provisionalized implants placed 4 to 6 months following augmentation with demineralized bovine bone allograft and collagen membrane. Of 23 implants in 19 patients, one implant failed prior to loading (95.6% survival). Implant tissue relationships were stable following implant placement; marginal bone level changes from implant placement to 5 years (mean ± SD: -0.18 ± 0.79 mm, range: -1.6 to 1.4 mm, P = .51), the mesial and distal papilla length changes (mesial mean ± SD: 1.14 ± 0.92 mm, P < .001; distal mean ± SD: 0.74 ± 1.46 mm, P = .04), and the unchanged mucosal zenith location (mean ± SD: 0.24 ± 0.93 mm, P = .15) were recorded. There were no major surgical complications during the 5-year period. When augmentation is required, subsequent dental implant placement in the anterior maxilla may be achieved using immediate placement and provisionalization protocol to attain osseointegration success and stable peri-implant tissue responses.

Immediate provisionalization of dental implants placed in healed alveolar ridges and extraction sockets: a 5-year prospective evaluation.

PURPOSE: This 5-year prospective multicenter study compared implant survival and success, peri-implant health and soft tissue responses, crestal bone level stability, and complication rates following immediate loading of single OsseoSpeed implants placed in anterior maxillary healed ridges or extraction sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals requiring anterior tooth replacement with single implants were treated and immediately provisionalized. Definitive all-ceramic crowns were placed at 12 weeks. Implant survival, bone levels, soft tissue levels, and peri-implant health were monitored for 5 years. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen patients received implants in fresh sockets (55) and healed ridges (58). After 5 years, 45 and 49 patients remained for evaluation, respectively. During the first year, three implants failed in the extraction socket group (94.6% survival) and one implant failed in the healed ridge group (98.3% survival); this difference was not significant. No further implant failures were recorded. After 5 years, the interproximal crestal bone levels were located a mean of 0.43 ± 0.63 mm and 0.38 ± 0.62 mm from the reference points of implants in sockets and healed ridges (not a significant difference). In both groups, papillae increased over time and peri-implant mucosal zenith positions were stable from the time of definitive crown placement in sockets and healed ridges. Compared to flap surgery for implants in healed ridges, flapless surgery resulted in increased peri-implant mucosal tissue dimension (average, 0.78 ± 1.34 mm vs 0.19 ± 0.79 mm). CONCLUSION: After 5 years, the bone and soft tissue parameters that characterize implant success and contribute to dental implant esthetics were similar following the immediate provisionalization of implants in sockets and healed ridges. The overall tissue responses and reported implant survival support the immediate provisionalization of dental implants in situations involving healed ridges and, under ideal circumstances, extraction sockets.

A retrospective cohort study of metal-cast resin- bonded fixed dental prostheses after at least 16 years.

PURPOSE: This retrospective cohort study evaluated metal-cast silan-coated three-unit resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) after at least 16 years and identified covariates affecting the survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients with 42 RBFDPs placed by one operator between 1986 and 1993 were recalled and invited for a clinical examination in conjunction with scrutiny of clinical records. RESULTS: Thirteen RBFDPs were lost to follow-up after an average of 58.5 months (SD = 39.4) and considered unaccounted for, 10 failed prior to the research recall and had a survival of 130.2 months (SD = 68.3), and 19 were still in function with a mean survival of 236.2 months (SD = 24.7). The estimated, cumulative survival via Kaplan-Meier analysis of the total number of 43 RBFDPs resulted in 95% (SE = 4%) survival after 5 years, 88% (SE = 6%) after 10 years and 66% (SE = 9%) after 20 years. No covariates were found having a significant effect on the survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: RBFDPs have an acceptable clinical survival although lower than conventional FDPs and single implants. They should therefore be considered as a temporary provision, as a provision for geriatric or medically-compromised patients because of the simplicity of the provision, as a less expensive alternative, and for patients where the amount of bone loss impedes the use of dental implants.

Three-years clinical outcome of immediate provisionalization of single Osseospeed(™) implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges.

AIM: The purpose of this prospective multicenter clinical study was to compare 3 years implant survival, bone and soft tissue changes following immediate loading using single Osseospeed(™) implants (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) installed in healed ridges or extraction sockets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implants were provisionally restored the day of surgery using cemented acrylic crowns out of full occlusion. The provisional crowns were replaced after 12 weeks by full-ceramic crowns. Implant survival, bone levels, soft tissue levels and peri-implant health were monitored up to 3 years. RESULTS: 55 patients (22 men, 33 women; mean age 45) had the implant installed in extraction sockets and 58 patients (25 men, 33 women; mean age 42) received conventional implant treatment in healed ridges. Three implants failed in the extraction group and one implant failed in the healed group, all failures occurred before the final crown placement. No further losses occurred during 3 years, giving a statistically comparable survival rate of 94.6% and 98.3%, respectively. The total bone loss after 3 years, compared to implant placement was 0.4 mm (SD 1.5) in healed sites, whilst the immediate sites showed a bone gain of 1.6 mm (SD 2.4) due to bone fill in the alveolus. Papillae retracted with 0.3 and 0.0 mm in the period of provisionalization, but grew back after final crown was placed with 0.3 and 0.5 mm in extraction and healed sites respectively after 3 years. Plaque and inflammation scores were very low throughout the study time, irrespective of treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implants restored at the day of surgery show comparable risk for implant failure, bone loss and midfacial soft tissue recession compared to conventionally installed implants. The 3-years results suggest both hard and soft tissue stability.

Clinical, aesthetic, and patient-related outcome of immediately loaded single implants in the anterior maxilla: a prospective study in extraction sockets, healed ridges, and grafted sites.

PURPOSE: The objective of this prospective clinical study was to document the overall treatment outcome of immediately loaded single Astra Tech Osseospeed™ (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) implants placed in extraction sockets, healed ridges, and grafted sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients in need of a single implant in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were recruited. Patients were allocated to a conventional implant treatment (CIT) or immediate implant treatment (IIT) group on the basis of specific criteria. If the buccal bone plate was damaged or missing upon tooth removal, patients were allocated to a grafted implant treatment (GIT) group. Irrespective of the treatment concept, implants were immediately provisionalized. Hard and soft tissue alterations, aesthetic parameters (pink and white esthetic scores, [PES and WES]) and patient's opinion (Oral Health Impact Profile [OHIP-14] questionnaires) were registered at different time points. RESULTS: After 1 year of function, the overall implant survival rate was 98% with one failure following IIT. The mean bone level to the implant-abutment interface was 0.65 (SD 0.79), 0.85 (SD 0.64), and 0.56 mm (SD 0.44) for CIT, IIT, and GIT. Complete papilla loss was rare following either strategy. Mean midfacial recession amounted to 1.00 (SD 1.15), 0.12 (SD 0.78), and 0.49 mm (SD 0.82) for CIT, IIT, and GIT, respectively. The aesthetic outcome showed a mean PES of 10.30 (SD 1.89) and mean WES of 7.11 (SD 2.14), all patients considered. Patient's satisfaction showed a significant improvement after 1 year of function on all seven domains (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study showed that single implants clinically and aesthetically perform well under immediate non-occlusal loading conditions in the premaxilla. In this context, it is of pivotal importance to stress that patients were carefully selected for IIT and GIT.

Reliability of circumferential bone level assessment around single implants in healed ridges and extraction sockets using cone beam CT.

PURPOSE: Cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) provides three-dimensional information and could absolutely be useful for evaluating circumferential implant bone levels. However, the accuracy and precision of the technique has not been described. The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy and precision of CBCT (i-CAT®, Imaging Sciences International®, Hatfield, PA, USA) using periapical radiographs (PA) as a reference and to evaluate the circumferential bone level on CBCT around immediately loaded single implants placed in healed ridges (CIT, conventional implant treatment) and extraction sockets (IIT, immediate implant placement). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PA and CBCT radiographs were obtained from 26 single Astra Tech Osseospeed™ implants (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) 1 year after loading in respectively healed ridges (CIT) or extraction socket (IIT). For accuracy analysis, the three mesial and three distal interproximal levels obtained by CBCT were pooled to enable a comparison with PA. Precision was analyzed by intra- and interexaminer reliability calculation from mesial and distal sites on CBCT. The circumferential bone level considered all eight positions assessed on CBCT. RESULTS: Accuracy of CBCT was low (R = 0.325/p = .019) given the fact that bone level of the total group was 0.70 mm (standard deviation [SD] 0.78, range 0.00-3.20) on PA and 0.23 mm (SD 0.27, 0.00-1.20) on CBCT (p < .001) with only 42% of the measurements showing deviation within 0.2 mm. However, intra- and interexaminer reliability were favorable (R ≥ 0.611/p < .001, ≥ 83%). The mean circumferential bone level on CBCT was 0.21 mm (SD 0.30) and 0.26 mm (SD 0.18) for IIT and CIT, respectively. The impact of the treatment strategy was not significant. CONCLUSION: PA should be the standard technique to assess interproximal bone level but correlates poorly with the CBCT measurements. However, the precision of CBCT was high. CBCT requires further improvements of hardware and/or software. Within the limitations of the study, there is an indication that the buccal bone 1 year after implant treatment is evenly preserved when implants are immediately loaded in extraction sockets or in healed bone.

A case-control study assessing oral-health-related quality of life after immediately loaded single implants in healed alveolar ridges or extraction sockets.

INTRODUCTION: Tooth loss reduces oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) as assessed with the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14). OBJECTIVES: This prospective multicenter case-control study sought to (i) establish OHRQoL in patients requiring a single implant in the anterior maxilla and to (ii) compare these changes following implant placement and immediate provisionalization in extraction sockets with healed alveolar ridges up to 1 year. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients were enrolled in the study with 102 single implants (OsseoSpeed AstraTech) provisionalized immediately after placement in sockets or after placement in healed ridges. A final crown was cemented after 12 weeks. OHIP-14 was registered before surgery (baseline), after 1 (provisional crown), 6 and 12 months (final crown). Repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the seven conceptual OHIP Domains, the treatment group (extraction site socket vs. healed alveolar ridge) and time as within subjects variables. RESULTS: Two implants failed, 1/48 (2.1%) in the extraction group (n=46 patients) and 1/54 (1.8%) in the healed ridge group (n=50 patients). From 82 patients (87.5%), OHIP-14 was available at all time points. The overall OHIP-14 based on the mean of the seven domains increases between baseline and 6 months and remained stable afterward for the total study group and both treatment groups. Comparison between extraction and healed groups revealed no significant difference at baseline but the healed group showed a significantly higher improvement for functional limitation, physical disability, physical pain and psychological discomfort (P<0.05). Between baseline and 1 year in the healed bone group, all seven domains improved significantly compared with only three domains in the extraction group. However, the overall OHIP-14 score between groups was not substantially different. Hence, both treatment modalities lead to similar OHRQoL improvement. CONCLUSION: Patients in need of a single-tooth replacement have limited OHRQoL problems as reflected by the OHIP-14 score but improvements in several domains related to oral health were evaluated when implants were placed and provisionalized in healed bone and extraction sites.

An analysis of the decision-making process for single implant treatment in general practice.

PURPOSE: To study the frequency of and factors associated with the decision to perform single implant treatment after tooth extraction by general practitioners in a private, fee-for-service setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred practitioners with a general dental practice in Ghent were randomly selected. Clinicians were asked to fill in a study form for every single extraction they performed during an 8-week period. The form related to the treatment decision and a number of patient- and clinician-related factors. RESULTS: Ninety-four general dentists (52 men, 42 women; mean age 49; range 24-68) agreed to participate and extracted 1180 single teeth. After exclusion of third molars and cases where the reason for tooth loss would generally prohibit replacement, 900 cases were identified. In 24% of these patients, there was no treatment decision and in 18% replacement was deemed unnecessary. When replacement was necessary (n = 526), removable partial denture (RPD), fixed partial denture (FPD), single implant treatment and resin-bonded bridge were chosen in 54%, 24%, 21% and 1% of the patients, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression was used to evaluate the decision-making process for single implant treatment against RPD and FPD. In relation to RPD, single implant treatment was more likely in highly educated patients with few missing teeth and no bone loss at adjacent teeth. In relation to FPD, single implant treatment was more likely in patients with intact adjacent teeth and when the tooth was extracted by a female dentist. Experience in implant prosthetics was positively associated with single implant treatment in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Single implant treatment is not the most common procedure in daily practice to restore a single tooth gap. Patient's education, oral factors and clinician-related factors may affect the decision-making process, whereas medical factors may not.

Immediate and conventional single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: 1-year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics.

AIM: The main objective of this clinical study was to document midfacial soft tissue dynamics following single immediate implant treatment (IIT) and conventional implant treatment (CIT) in the anterior maxilla when performed by experienced clinicians in well-selected patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Appropriate bone volume and ideal soft tissue levels were considered requirements for implant therapy. Additional prerequisites for IIT were intact socket walls and a thick gingival biotype. CIT included standard flap elevation whereas IIT was either performed with a flap or flapless procedure. All implants were provisionally restored using cemented acrylic crowns. Bone levels, papillae and midfacial soft tissue levels were monitored at regular intervals. The aesthetic outcome was assessed after 1 year using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and white aesthetic score (WES). RESULTS: Sixteen patients (10 men, six women; mean age 45) received an immediate implant and 23 patients (12 men, 11 women; mean age 40) had conventional implant surgery. One immediate implant failed in the early healing phase. The mean bone level from the implant-abutment interface was 0.85mm for IIT and 0.65mm for CIT after 1 year (p=0.144). Mesial papillae remained stable over time. Minute loss of distal papillae occurred following IIT (-0.38mm) and a tendency for re-growth was found following CIT (0.60mm). Midfacial soft tissues remained stable over time following IIT with only 7% showing advanced recession (>1mm). Flapless surgery induced less midfacial recession than flap surgery (p=0.023). Significant midfacial recession occurred following CIT (-1mm). Overall, 24% were aesthetic failures (PES<8 and/or WES<6) and 8% showed an (almost) perfect outcome (PES12 and WES9). The remainder (68%) demonstrated acceptable aesthetics. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implants demonstrated fairly stable midfacial soft tissue levels with only a minority of cases showing advanced recession. Irrespective of the timing of implant placement, aesthetic failures seem to be rather common and only a strict minority may show perfection.

Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes following immediate provisionalization of single-tooth dental implants placed in healed alveolar ridges and extraction sockets.

PURPOSE: The primary goal of this study was to compare implant survival 12 months after immediate loading of single implants placed in healed ridges versus extraction sockets. Secondary outcomes were to compare marginal bone adaptation and soft tissue changes over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter clinical investigation was initiated to assess clinical performance of immediately loaded implants in the maxilla. Implant survival was ascertained at the time of impression making (8 to 10 weeks) and after 1 year by clinical stability. Radiographic marginal bone levels, soft tissue levels, and plaque and bleeding scores were compared with baseline values (implant placement and provisionalization). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients received 157 implants in the maxilla. Single implants with provisional crowns were placed in extraction sockets of 55 patients (58 implants) and in healed ridges of 60 patients (65 implants). In addition, 19 patients (23 implants) required bone grafting prior to implant placement, and 11 implants in 10 patients among all groups were not immediately loaded because of insufficient initial stability after surgery. Three implants (5.2%) failed in extraction sites and one implant (1.5%) failed in a healed ridge. The mean change in marginal bone level 1 year after implant placement was 1.30 mm (SD 2.52) (gain) in extraction sockets and -0.40 mm (SD 1.43) (loss) in healed ridges. The mucosal zenith was stable or moved incisally following definitive crown placement in 83.7% of immediate implants and 87.0% of implants placed in healed ridges. Plaque and inflammation scores were low and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The responses of local bone and soft tissues at immediately loaded implants placed in extraction sockets or healed ridges were similar. Furthermore, these 1-year results suggest that clinical management of esthetically critical soft tissue may be predictably achieved in both indications.

Clinical outcome of overdenture treatment on two nonsubmerged and nonsplinted Astra Tech Microthread implants.

BACKGROUND: The use of two implants for mandibular overdenture stabilization improves the patients' comfort and well-being. This treatment could be more cost-effective if surgery and prosthetic treatment could be performed by one clinician in the normal setting of a dental clinic. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to describe implant success, restorative outcome, and the patients' opinion of mandibular overdenture treatment on two early-loaded, nonsplinted Astra Tech TiOblast Microthread (Astra Tech Dental, Mölndal, Sweden) implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven consecutive patients treated with implant-supported mandibular overdentures were invited for a clinical examination. Implant survival, marginal bone level, quality of implant and prosthetic treatment, and the patients' opinion by means of questionnaires were scored. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients attended the examination. Two implants were lost in one patient and the failure rate for the total group of patients was 3%. As 8 of the 33 remaining patients were still in the provisional loading stage, they were not included in the final clinical and radiographic examination. Based on 25 patients and 50 implants with a mean follow-up of 18.8 months (range 4-33), implant positioning and occlusion/articulation scored perfect in 74 to 80% of the cases. Retention of the dentures was rated perfect in 80%, but 20% needed minor activation of the attachments, 20% showed signs of abrasion, and 20% had already been repaired. The average marginal bone level was 0.8 mm below the reference point. The mean pocket depth was 2.1 mm, and 54% of the peri-implant tissues were free of bleeding. The patients were appreciative of the work carried out by their dentist and they indicated a significant improvement in their well-being and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the Astra Tech implant system was successfully used by the general dentist both surgically and prosthetically with minimal implant failures and prosthetic complications and that this led to high levels of patient appreciation and overall satisfaction.