ISSN: 1859 - 2872
Clinical outcomes after 5 years in patients receiving single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Objective: This article presents the results of a 5-year follow-up study on patients who received single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone. Subject and method: Twenty-four implants were placed on average 10 days after tooth extraction (early), and ninety-two implants were placed 3 months after extraction (delayed). All implants were inserted in the maxillary or mandibular anterior and premolar regions. The survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL) on radiographs, papilla height, masticatory function recovery, and patient esthetic satisfaction were evaluated over the 5-year follow-up period. Result: One implant in the early placement group and two implants in the delayed placement group failed before occlusal loading. The annual vertical bone loss was less than 0.2 mm in both groups during the 5-year follow-up. Patients in both groups were highly satisfied with their implant treatment outcomes. Conclusion: Both early and delayed single-tooth implant placements demonstrated high survival rates, minimal complications, marginal bone loss within acceptable limits, stable soft tissue appearance, and good patient satisfaction over the 5-year follow-up period.
Article Details
References
2. Cosyn J, De Lat L, Seyssens L et al (2019) The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replace‐ ment compared to delayed implant placement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 46(21): 224-241.
3. Furze D, Byrne A, Alam S et al (2019) Influence of the fixed implant‐supported provisional phase on the esthetic final outcome of implant‐supported crowns: 3‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 21: 649-655.
4. Jockusch J & Ozcan M (2020) Additive manufacturing of dental polymers: An overview on processes, materials and applications. Dental Materials Journal 39: 345-354.
5. Mazzotti C, Stefanini M, Felice P et al (2018) Soft‐tissue dehiscence coverage at peri‐implant sites. Periodontology 77: 256–272.
6. Mesquita De Carvalho PF, Joly JC, Carvalho Da Silva R & Gonzalez‐Martin O (2019) Therapeutic alternatives for addressing pink esthetic complications in single‐tooth implants: A proposal for a clinical decision tree. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 31: 403-414.
7. Pyo SW, Kim DJ, Han JS & Yeo IL (2020) Ceramic materi‐ als and technologies applied to digital works in implant‐ supported restorative dentistry. Materials (Basel) 13: 1964.
8. Tatum CL, Saltz AE, Prihoda TJ et al (2020) Management of thick and thin periodontal phenotypes for immediate dental implants in the esthetic zone: A controlled clinical trial. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 40, 51–59.
9. Zucchelli G, Tavelli L, Stefanini M et al (2019) Classification of facial peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies at single implant sites in the esthetic zone. Journal of Periodontology 90: 1116-1124.
10. Wittneben JG, Gavric J, Sailer I, Buser D & Wismeijer D (2020) Clinical and esthetic outcomes of two different pros‐ thetic workflows for implant‐supported all‐ceramic single crowns‐3 year results of a randomized multicenter clinical trail. Clinical Oral Implants Research 31: 495-505.
Article Sidebar
