Article

Immediate positioning of definitive abutments versus repeated abutment replacements in immediately loaded implants: effects on bone healing at the 1-year follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Department of Integrated Activities of Specialised Head-Neck Surgery, University of Modena and Reggio, Emilia, Italy.
European Journal of Oral Implantology (Impact Factor: 2.57). 01/2012; 5(1):9-16.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare bone resorption around implants immediately loaded and restored using definitive abutments versus provisional abutments later replaced by custom-made abutments up to 12 months after implant placement.
28 patients with partial edentulism were selected for a two-implant supported immediate restoration and randomised to provisional abutment (PA) and definitive abutment (DA) groups (14 patients for each group). In the PA group, implants were immediately restored using a platform-switched provisional titanium abutment. In the DA group, definitive platform-switched titanium abutments were tightened. In both groups, a provisional restoration was adapted, avoiding occlusal contacts. All implants were definitively restored after 3 months. In the PA group, patients underwent the standard prosthetic protocol: the abutments were removed and impressions were made directly on the implant platform. In the DA group, patients underwent the 'one abutment at one time' protocol: impressions were made of the abutments using a retraction cord. Peri-implant marginal bone levels were assessed immediately after surgery, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up examinations.
At the 12-month follow-up no implant failed. In the PA group, peri-implant bone resorption was 0.359 mm after 6 months and 0.435 mm after 12 months. In the DA group, peri-implant bone resorption was 0.065 mm after 6 months and 0.094 mm after 12 months. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups for peri-implant bone level changes at the 6-month (P < 0.001) and the 12-month (P < 0.001) follow-up: 0.294 mm (CI 95% 0.276; 0.312) and 0.341 mm (CI 95% 0.322; 0.36), respectively.
Within the limits of this study, it can be suggested that the non-removal of abutments placed at the time of surgery results in a statistically significant reduction of the crestal bone resorption around the immediately restored implants in cases of partial edentulism, however a difference of 0.3 mm may not have a clinical impact.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
105 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One abutment–one time versus a provisional abutment in immediately loaded post-extractive single implants: A 1-year follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial Key words abutment dis/reconnection, bone loss, implant-abutment interface, platform switching, post-extractive implants Purpose: To compare immediately loaded post-extractive single implants using a definitive abutment versus provisional abutment later replaced by custom-made abutment. Materials and methods: In two private clinics, 28 patients in need of one single post-extractive im-plant in the maxilla or mandible from the left second premolar to the right second premolar area were randomised shortly before tooth extraction to provisional abutment (PA) and definitive abut-ment (DA) groups. Three patients had to be excluded for buccal wall fracture after tooth extraction. In the PA group, implants were immediately restored using a platform-switched provisional titanium abutment and definitive platform-switched titanium abutments were used in the DA group. In both groups, a non-occluding provisional single crown was provided. Implants were definitively restored after 4 months. In the PA group, the abutment was removed and the impression was made directly on the implant platform. In the DA group an impression of the abutment was made using a retraction cord. Outcome measures were: implant failures; complications; and marginal peri-implant bone level changes. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. Results: Twelve patients were randomised to the DA group and 13 patients to the PA group. At the 12-month follow-up, no implant failed. One biological complication occurred in the DA group and one mechanical complication occurred in the PA group. All complications were successfully treated. One year after loading, implants in the DA group lost an average of 0.11 mm (SD: 0.06) of peri-implant bone and implants in PA group about 0.58 mm (SD: 0.11). At the 12-month follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference in bone level change between groups (mean difference: 0.48 mm, CI 95% 0.40; 0.55, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, the non-removal of abutments placed at the time of surgery resulted in the maintenance of 0.5 mm more bone levels around immediately restored post-extractive single implants than repeated abutment removal, although this amount of bone mainten-ance may not have a clinical impact.
    European Journal of Oral Implantology 01/2014; 7(2):141-9. · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Different inlay casting waxes do not produce copings with satisfactory marginal accuracy when used on different die materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal accuracy of 4 inlay casting waxes on stone dies and titanium and zirconia abutments and to correlate the findings with the degree of wetting between the die specimens and the inlay casting waxes. The inlay casting waxes tested were Starwax (Dentaurum), Unterziehwachs (Bredent), SU Esthetic wax (Schuler), and Sculpturing wax (Renfert). The marginal opening of the waxes was measured with a stereomicroscope on high-strength stone dies and on titanium and zirconia abutments. Photographic images were obtained, and the mean marginal opening for each specimen was calculated. A total of 1440 measurements were made. Wetting between die materials and waxes was determined after fabricating stone, titanium, and zirconia rectangular specimens. A calibrated pipette was used to place a drop of molten wax onto each specimen. The contact angle was calculated with software after an image of each specimen had been made with a digital camera. Collected data were subjected to a 2-way analysis of variance (α=.05). Any association between marginal accuracy and wetting of different materials was found by using the Pearson correlation. The wax factor had a statistically significant effect both on the marginal discrepancy (F=158.31, P<.001) and contact angle values (F=68.09, P<.001). A statistically significant effect of the die material factor both on the marginal adaptation (F=503.47, P<.001) and contact angle values (F=585.02, P <.001) was detected. A significant correlation between the marginal accuracy and the contact angle values (Pearson=0.881, P=.01) was also found. Stone dies provided wax copings with the best marginal integrity, followed by titanium and zirconia abutments. Unterziehwachs (Bredent), wax produced the best marginal adaptation on different die materials. A significant correlation was found between the marginal accuracy and the contact angle values. As the contact angle value became smaller, the marginal accuracy improved. All combinations of waxes and stone and titanium dies presented a high wettability.
    The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 03/2014; · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The effect on the marginal peri-implant tissues following repeated platform switching abutment removal and subsequent reconnection was studied.Material and Methods Six adult female Beagle dogs were selected, and Pm3 and Pm4 teeth, both left and right sides, were extracted and the sites healed for 3 months. At this time, 24 bone level (BL) (Straumann®, Basel, Switzerland) Ø 3.3/8 mm implants were placed, 2 in each side on Pm3 and Pm4 regions. In one side (control group), 12 bone level conical Ø 3.6 mm healing abutments and, on the other side (test group), 12 Narrow CrossFit™ (NC) multibase abutments (Straumann®, Basel, Switzerland) were connected at time of implant surgery. On test group, all prosthetic procedures were carried out direct to multibase abutment without disconnecting it, where in the control group, the multibase abutment was connected/disconnected five times (at 6/8/10/12/14 weeks) during prosthetic procedures. Twelve fixed metal bridges were delivered 14 weeks after implant placement. A cleaning/control appointment was scheduled 6 months after implant placement. The animals were sacrificed at 9 months of the study. Clinical parameters and peri-apical x-rays were registered in every visit. Histomorphometric analysis was carried out for the 24 implants. The distance from multibase abutment shoulder to the first bone implant contact (S-BIC) was defined as the primary histomorphometric parameter.ResultsWilcoxon comparison paired test (n = 6) found no statistically significant differences (buccal P = 0.917; Lingual P = 0.463) between test and control groups both lingually and buccally for S-BIC distance. Only Pm3 buccal aBE–BC (distance from the apical end of the barrier epithelium to the first bone implant contact) (P = 0.046) parameter presented statistically significant differences between test and control groups. Control group presented 0.57 mm more recession than test group, being this difference statistically significant between the two groups (P < 0.001).Conclusion It can be conclude, within the limits of this animal study, that the connection/disconnection of platform switching abutments during prosthetic phase of implant treatment does not induce bone marginal absorption. Furthermore, it may present a negative influence in the buccal connective tissue attachment that becomes shorter anyway preventing marginal hard tissue resorption, especially in thin biotypes.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 04/2014; · 3.43 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
93 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014