Tim De Rouck1, Kristiaan Collys, Jan Cosyn. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, Free Univeristy of Brussels (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. tim.de.rouck@vub.ac.be
Abstract
AIM: The objective of the present study was to assess implant survival rate, hard and soft tissue response and aesthetic outcome 1 year after immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the pre-maxilla. All patients underwent the same strategy, that is mucoperiosteal flap elevation, immediate implant placement, insertion of a grafting material between the implant and the socket wall and the connection of a screw-retained provisional restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients were treated for single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone by means of immediate implant placement and provisionalization. Reasons for tooth loss included caries, periodontitis or trauma. At 6 months, provisional crowns were replaced by the permanent ones. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was completed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess implant survival and complications, hard and soft tissue parameters and patient's aesthetic satisfaction. RESULTS: One implant had failed at 1 month of follow-up, resulting in an implant survival rate of 97%. Radiographic examination yielded 0.98 mm mesial, respectively, 0.78 mm distal bone loss. Midfacial soft tissue recession and mesial/distal papilla shrinkage were 0.53, 0.41 and 0.31 mm, respectively. Patient's aesthetic satisfaction was 93%. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results suggest that the proposed strategy can be considered to be a valuable treatment option in well-selected patients.
AIM: The objective of the present study was to assess implant survival rate, hard and soft tissue response and aesthetic outcome 1 year after immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the pre-maxilla. All patients underwent the same strategy, that is mucoperiosteal flap elevation, immediate implant placement, insertion of a grafting material between the implant and the socket wall and the connection of a screw-retained provisional restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients were treated for single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone by means of immediate implant placement and provisionalization. Reasons for tooth loss included caries, periodontitis or trauma. At 6 months, provisional crowns were replaced by the permanent ones. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was completed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess implant survival and complications, hard and soft tissue parameters and patient's aesthetic satisfaction. RESULTS: One implant had failed at 1 month of follow-up, resulting in an implant survival rate of 97%. Radiographic examination yielded 0.98 mm mesial, respectively, 0.78 mm distal bone loss. Midfacial soft tissue recession and mesial/distal papilla shrinkage were 0.53, 0.41 and 0.31 mm, respectively. Patient's aesthetic satisfaction was 93%. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results suggest that the proposed strategy can be considered to be a valuable treatment option in well-selected patients.
Authors: Anders Henningsen; Ralf Smeets; Aria Wahidi; Lan Kluwe; Frank Kornmann; Max Heiland; Till Gerlach Journal: J Periodontal Implant Sci Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.614
Authors: Antoine N Berberi; Joseph M Sabbagh; Moustafa N Aboushelib; Ziad F Noujeim; Ziad A Salameh Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Rosa Rojo; Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos; Ángel Manchón; Jesús Rodríguez-Molinero; Gilberto Sammartino; José Luis Calvo Guirado; Rafael Gómez-de Diego Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.411