Literature DB >> 28327695

Do repeated changes of abutments have any influence on the stability of peri-implant tissues? One-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Marco Esposito, Eriberto Bressan, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Ferdinando D'Avenia, Konrad Neumann, Luca Sbricoli, Giuseppe Luongo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of at least three abutment changes in conventionally loaded implants against placement of a definitive abutment in immediately non-occlusal loaded implants on hard and soft tissue changes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients requiring one single crown or one fixed partial prosthesis supported by a maximum of three implants were randomised, after implants were placed with more than 35 Ncm, according to a parallel group design to receive definitive abutments which were loaded immediately (definitive abutment or immediate loading group) or transmucosal abutments. These were delayed loaded after 3 months and were removed at least three times: 1) at impression taking (3 months after implant placement); 2) when checking the zirconium core on titanium abutments at single crowns or the fitting the metal structure at prostheses supported by multiple implants; 3) at delivery of the definitive prostheses (repeated disconnection or conventional loading group). Patients were treated in four centres and each patient contributed to the study with only one prosthesis followed for 1 year after initial loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications, pink esthetic score (PES), buccal recessions, patient satisfaction, peri-implant marginal bone level changes and height of the keratinised mucosa.
RESULTS: Forty patients were randomly allocated to each group according to a parallel group design. Two patients dropped out from the definitive abutment group but no implant failed. Four provisional and one definitive single crowns had to be remade (due of misfitting) and one definitive crown (due to ceramic fracture) in the repeated disconnection group versus one provisional prosthesis of the immediate loading group due to frequent debondings (difference = 12%; CI95%: 0%, 25%; P = 0.109). Eight patients were affected by complications: four patients from each group (difference = 1%; CI95%: -13%, 14%; P = 1). PES scores assessed at 1 year post-loading were 11.4 (1.5) mm for the definitive abutment group and 11.0 (2.0) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (difference = 0.4; CI95%: -0.4, 1.2; P = 0.289). Buccal recessions at 1 year post-loading amounted to 0.07 (0.35) mm for the definitive abutment group and 0.12 (0.65) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (actually it was a soft tissue gain; difference = 0.05 CI 95%: -0.19, 0.29; P = 0.659). All patients declared to be very satisfied or satisfied with the function and aesthetics of the prostheses and would undergo the same procedure again. Mean peri-implant marginal bone loss at 1 year after loading was 0.06 (0.12) mm for the definitive abutment group and 0.23 (0.49) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (difference = -0.16; CI95%: -0.33,-0.00; P = 0.046). The height of the keratinised mucosa at 1 year post-loading was 2.8 (1.5) mm for the definitive abutment group and 2.8 (1.7) mm for the repeated abutment changes group (difference = -0.0; CI 95%: -0.8, 0.7); P = 0.966. Up to 1 year after initial loading, there were no statistically significant differences between the two procedures, with the exception of 0.16 mm more marginal bone loss at implants subjected to three abutment removals.
CONCLUSIONS: One-year post-loading data showed that repeated abutment changes significantly increased bone loss of 0.16, but this difference cannot be considered clinically relevant, therefore clinicians can use the procedure they find more convenient for their specific patient. In addition, immediately non-occlusally loaded dental implants are a viable alternative to conventional loading. Conflict-of-interest statement: This trial was partially funded by Dentsply Sirona Implants, the manufacturer of the implants and other products evaluated in this investigation. However, data belonged to the authors and by no means did the manufacturer interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of the results with exception of rejecting the proposal of changing the protocol, after the trial was started, allowing the use of indexed abutments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28327695

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol        ISSN: 1756-2406            Impact factor:   3.123


  6 in total

1.  Validation of an implant stability measurement device using the percussion response: a clinical research study.

Authors:  Yurie Okuhama; Koudai Nagata; Hyunjin Kim; Hayato Tsuruoka; Mihoko Atsumi; Hiromasa Kawana
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 3.747

2.  A Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Immediate vs. Early Loading (4 Weeks) of Implants with a New Thermo-Chemically Treated Surface: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Matteo Albertini; Federico Herrero-Climent; Carmen María Díaz-Castro; Jose Nart; Ana Fernández-Palacín; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  All-ceramic versus titanium-based implant supported restorations: Preliminary 12-months results from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Paul Weigl; Georgia Trimpou; Eleftherios Grizas; Pablo Hess; Georg-Hubertus Nentwig; Hans-Christoph Lauer; Jonas Lorenz
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 1.904

4.  Comparative evaluation of peri-implant tissues in definitive and repeated abutment replacements: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Prachi Rajendra Rathi; Rajashri Abhay Kolte; Abhay Pandurang Kolte
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2022-01-01

5.  The Association of the One-Abutment at One-Time Concept with Marginal Bone Loss around the SLA and Platform Switch and Conical Abutment Implants.

Authors:  Nasreen Hamudi; Eitan Barnea; Evgeny Weinberg; Amir Laviv; Eitan Mijiritsky; Shlomo Matalon; Liat Chaushu; Roni Kolerman
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Ella A Naumova; Felix Roth; Berit Geis; Christine Baulig; Wolfgang H Arnold; Andree Piwowarczyk
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.623

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.