OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of immediate functional loading of implants in single-tooth replacement using two different installation procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-one subjects, who required single-tooth rehabilitation in the area of 15-25 and 35-45, were enrolled in eight private clinics in Italy. The implant sites were randomly allocated to one of the following treatment groups. In the control group, in which a standard preparation procedure for implant placement and submerged healing of the implant was used, abutment connection and loading of the implants were performed 3 months after installation. In the test group 1, a standard preparation procedure for the implant placement and immediate functional loading of implant was carried out. In the test 2 group, however, a modified implant installation procedure (osteotome technique) was used followed by immediate functional loading of the implant. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up at all sites. RESULTS: Three implants (5.5%) from the test 2 group (osteotome preparation) and one (2%) from the test 1 group (conventional drill preparation) failed to integrate and were removed one and three months after implant installation. The mean marginal bone loss assessed at 12 months was 0.31 mm (test 1), 0.25 mm (test 2) and 0.38 mm (control) (no statistically significant differences were found between the three treatment groups.) CONCLUSION: It is suggested that immediate functional loading of implants that are placed with a conventional installation technique and with sufficient primary stability may be considered as a valid treatment alternative in a single-tooth replacement.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of immediate functional loading of implants in single-tooth replacement using two different installation procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-one subjects, who required single-tooth rehabilitation in the area of 15-25 and 35-45, were enrolled in eight private clinics in Italy. The implant sites were randomly allocated to one of the following treatment groups. In the control group, in which a standard preparation procedure for implant placement and submerged healing of the implant was used, abutment connection and loading of the implants were performed 3 months after installation. In the test group 1, a standard preparation procedure for the implant placement and immediate functional loading of implant was carried out. In the test 2 group, however, a modified implant installation procedure (osteotome technique) was used followed by immediate functional loading of the implant. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up at all sites. RESULTS: Three implants (5.5%) from the test 2 group (osteotome preparation) and one (2%) from the test 1 group (conventional drill preparation) failed to integrate and were removed one and three months after implant installation. The mean marginal bone loss assessed at 12 months was 0.31 mm (test 1), 0.25 mm (test 2) and 0.38 mm (control) (no statistically significant differences were found between the three treatment groups.) CONCLUSION: It is suggested that immediate functional loading of implants that are placed with a conventional installation technique and with sufficient primary stability may be considered as a valid treatment alternative in a single-tooth replacement.
Authors: Suchada Kongkiatkamon; Amsaveni Ramachandran; Kent L Knoernschild; Stephen D Campbell; Cortino Sukotjo; Anne George Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 4.411