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

Department of Peridontology and Implantalogy, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
European Journal of Oral Implantology (Impact Factor: 3.14). 12/2011; 4(4):329-44.
Source: PubMed


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.

24 Reads
  • Source
    • "In addition, the parameter of soft-tissue margin level showed excellent score 2 in both groups. The distributor of the implants named MegaGen (Felice et al. 2011) partially supported this trial and donated the implants used in this trial. This may be the possible reason for the exceptionally well outcome. "
    [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 · 3.89 Impact Factor
  • Source

    European Journal of Oral Implantology 01/2012; 5(3):277-85. · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: To evaluate the outcome of immediately loaded mandibular cross-arch prostheses according to the 'all-on-4' concept supported by implants placed in fresh extraction sockets up to 18 months after loading. Materials and methods: In total, 47 patients with a mean age of 62.3 years (range 52 to 78) were rehabilitated with an immediately loaded fixed cross-arch prosthesis supported by four post-extractive implants. A total of 188 implants were inserted. Patients received a provisional fixed dental prosthesis with a metal framework within 48 hours after surgery and a permanent one 6 months later. The patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at implant placement and at 6-, 12- and 18-month follow-up examinations. Results: At the 18-month follow-up, no implant failed and all restorations were stable. Peri-implant bone levels amounted to 0.31 ± 0.12 mm after 6 months, 0.58 ± 0.112 mm after 12 months and 0.7 ± 0.107 mm after 18 months. No significant differences in bone loss were found between axially placed and tilted implants at the 6-month (0.06 mm; P = 0.115), the 12-month (0.12 mm; P = 0.062) and the 18-month follow-up (0.08 mm; P = 0.146). Three patients had a fracture of the provisional restoration, but all of the definitive prostheses remained stable throughout the study period without any complications. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, it can be suggested that immediately loaded mandibular cross-arch fixed dental prostheses can be supported by four post-extractive implants, however larger and longer follow-ups are needed.
    European Journal of Oral Implantology 09/2012; 5(3):277-285. · 3.14 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications