OBJECTIVES: To compare single implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs for marginal bone-level changes and clinical outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a 1.5 mm smooth neck ("smooth group"), a moderately rough neck with grooves ("rough group") or a scalloped moderately rough neck with grooves ("scalloped-group"). Implants were installed in healed sites and were loaded after 3 months. Follow-up visits were conducted at 6 and 18 months after implant placement. RESULTS: The scalloped group showed significantly more radiographic bone loss from implant placement to 18 months (2.01 ± 0.77 mm) compared with the smooth group (1.19 ± 0.82 mm) and rough group (0.9 ± 0.57 mm). Furthermore the scalloped group showed significantly deeper pocket depths and a higher bleeding score. There were no between-group differences in soft tissue levels. Survival rates were 97% for the smooth group and 100% for the rough and scalloped groups (P>0.05). No significant differences in outcome were found between the smooth group and rough group. CONCLUSION: For anterior tooth replacements, implants with a scalloped neck showed more marginal bone loss and less favourable clinical outcome compared with implants with a 1.5 mm smooth neck or implants with a rough neck.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare single implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs for marginal bone-level changes and clinical outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a 1.5 mm smooth neck ("smooth group"), a moderately rough neck with grooves ("rough group") or a scalloped moderately rough neck with grooves ("scalloped-group"). Implants were installed in healed sites and were loaded after 3 months. Follow-up visits were conducted at 6 and 18 months after implant placement. RESULTS: The scalloped group showed significantly more radiographic bone loss from implant placement to 18 months (2.01 ± 0.77 mm) compared with the smooth group (1.19 ± 0.82 mm) and rough group (0.9 ± 0.57 mm). Furthermore the scalloped group showed significantly deeper pocket depths and a higher bleeding score. There were no between-group differences in soft tissue levels. Survival rates were 97% for the smooth group and 100% for the rough and scalloped groups (P>0.05). No significant differences in outcome were found between the smooth group and rough group. CONCLUSION: For anterior tooth replacements, implants with a scalloped neck showed more marginal bone loss and less favourable clinical outcome compared with implants with a 1.5 mm smooth neck or implants with a rough neck.