Immediate non-occlusal loading of immediate post-extractive versus delayed placement of single implants in preserved sockets of the anterior maxilla: 4-month post-loading results from a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial.
ABSTRACT To compare the effectiveness of immediate post-extractive single implants with delayed implants placed in preserved sockets after 4 months of healing. Implants that achieved an insertion torque of at least 35 Ncm were immediately non-occlusally loaded.
Just after tooth extraction and in the presence of a loss of the buccal plate bone less than 4 mm, compared to the palatal wall, 106 patients requiring a single immediate postextractive implant in the maxilla from second premolar to second premolar were randomly allocated to immediate implant placement (immediate group; 54 patients) or to socket preservation using anorganic bovine bone covered by a resorbable collagen barrier (delayed group; 52 patients) according to a parallel group design at three different centres. Bone-to-implant gaps were to be filled with anorganic bovine bone, however this was not done in 17 patients (corresponding to 40% of those who should have been grafted). Four months after socket preservation, delayed implants were placed. Implants placed with an insertion torque >35 Ncm were immediately loaded with non-occluding provisional single crowns, replaced, after 4 months, by definitive crowns. Outcome measures were implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction, recorded by blinded assessors. All patients were followed up to 4 months after loading.
Nineteen (35%) implants were not immediately loaded in the immediate group versus 39 (75%) implants in the delayed placement group because an insertion torque >35 Ncm could not be obtained. No patient dropped out. Two implants failed in the immediate group (4%) versus none in the delayed group. More minor complications occurred in the immediate group (8) than the in the delayed group (1) and this was statistically significant (P = 0.032). At delivery of definitive crowns, 4 months after loading, aesthetics were scored as 12.8 and 12.6 in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.5). Patients of both groups were equally satisfied.
There were more complications at immediate post-extractive implants when compared to delayed implants. The aesthetic outcome appears to be similar for both groups and it seems more difficult to obtain a high insertion torque in sockets preserved with anorganic bovine bone.
- SourceAvailable from: Longfei Zhuang[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of the current review was to systematically appraise the esthetic outcome of soft tissue around single implant crowns following type 1 and type 3 implants placement in published dental literature. A PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials search up to March 2013 was conducted for articles published in the dental literature and limited to human trials with no language restricted. Furthermore, the reference lists of related articles were systematically screened, and additional manual searches were also performed. The primary outcome was pink esthetics score (PES). The electronic search in the database of PubMed, Embase, and the Cohrane Central Register of Controlled Trials resulted in the identification of 463 titles. These titles were initially screened by the two independent reviewers for possible inclusion. Screening the abstracts and titles led to 28 articles for future full-text consideration. From these articles, 18 studies were excluded. Manual search identified one article. After quality assessment, eight studies were included in this review. This review showed that no significant difference of PES index could be found between type 1 and type 3 implant placement. According to the current evidence, short-term esthetic outcomes of peri-implant soft tissue did not show significant difference following type 1 and type 3 implants placement with well-selected patients. However, caution should be taken for clinicians to extrapolate this result to all types of patients, as more randomized clinical trials are needed for long-term soft-tissue esthetic outcome in patients with high esthetic risk following type 1 implant placement. PES frequency, peri-implant condition and other risk factors for peri-implantitis are recommended to be reported for future studies.Clinical Oral Implants Research 01/2014; 26(7). DOI:10.1111/clr.12334 · 3.12 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of an anorganic bovine bone graft particulate to that of a calcium phosphosilicate putty alloplast for socket preservation. Materials and Methods: Thirty teeth were extracted from 24 patients. The sockets were debrided and received anorganic bovine bone mineral (BOV, n = 12), calcium phosphosilicate putty (PUT, n = 12), or no graft (CTRL, n = 6). The sockets were assessed clinically and radiographically 5 months later. Eight sockets in the BOV group and nine in the PUT group received implants 5 to 6 months postgrafting. The maximum implant insertion torque (MIT) was measured as an index of primary implant stability. The data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test. Results: Both test groups had statistically significantly less reduction in mean ridge width (BOV: 1.39 ± 0.57 mm; PUT: 1.26 ± 0.41 mm) in comparison to the control group (2.53 ± 0.59 mm). No statistically significant difference was identified between the test groups. MIT for PUT was ≤ 35 N/cm² (MIT grade 4) for seven of the nine implants. MIT values in the BOV group ranged from grade 1 (10 to 19 N/cm²) to grade 4, which was statistically significantly lower than for the PUT group. The overall implant success rate was 94.1% (16 of 17 implants were successful). No implants were lost in the PUT group; one implant failed in the BOV group. Conclusion: Both tested bone substitutes can be recommended for preservation of alveolar ridge width following extraction. PUT might be more suitable for achieving primary stability for implants placed at 5 to 6 months postextraction.The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 01/2014; 29(1):141-51. DOI:10.11607/jomi.3230 · 1.49 Impact Factor
- European Journal of Oral Implantology 01/2012; 5(3):277-85. · 2.02 Impact Factor