Stefanie Raes1, Aryan Eghbali2, Vivianne Chappuis3, Filiep Raes1, Hugo De Bruyn1,4,5, Jan Cosyn1,2. 1. Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Oral Health Research Group (ORHE), Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. 5. Department Periodontology and Implantology, College of Dental Science, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many studies have been published on single implants, long-term data remain scarce. PURPOSE: To evaluate immediately restored single implants after at least 8 years of follow-up in terms of buccal bone, soft tissue alterations, aesthetic ratings, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients who were consecutively treated with an immediately restored single implant installed in an extraction socket (IIT) or a healed ridge (CIT) in the anterior maxilla. Biomaterials were never used. CBCTs were taken at study termination, soft tissue alterations, and Pink Esthetic Score were evaluated between 1 year and study termination using standardized clinical images. Patient satisfaction was also registered. RESULTS: About 11/16 initially treated patients in the IIT cohort (10 men, 6 women; mean age 45) and 18/23 initially treated patients in the CIT cohort (12 men, 11 women; mean age 40) could be evaluated after more than 8 years. A buccal bone wall less than 2 mm was found at all implant sites. A thin buccal bone wall less than 1 mm was found at 42% of the implant sites. In the CIT cohort, 8 patients had a missing buccal bone in the crestal area, although bone was present at the time of surgery. Alveolar process deficiency significantly deteriorated (P ≤ .046), whereas vertical soft tissue levels and PES remained stable over time in both cohorts. Patients expressed high overall satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial dimensional changes may be expected at the buccal aspect of single implants inserted in the premaxilla. As a result, contour augmentation procedures at the time of implant placement should be considered to counteract these bone alterations, even when implants are fully embedded in bone upon insertion.
BACKGROUND: Although many studies have been published on single implants, long-term data remain scarce. PURPOSE: To evaluate immediately restored single implants after at least 8 years of follow-up in terms of buccal bone, soft tissue alterations, aesthetic ratings, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients who were consecutively treated with an immediately restored single implant installed in an extraction socket (IIT) or a healed ridge (CIT) in the anterior maxilla. Biomaterials were never used. CBCTs were taken at study termination, soft tissue alterations, and Pink Esthetic Score were evaluated between 1 year and study termination using standardized clinical images. Patient satisfaction was also registered. RESULTS: About 11/16 initially treated patients in the IIT cohort (10 men, 6 women; mean age 45) and 18/23 initially treated patients in the CIT cohort (12 men, 11 women; mean age 40) could be evaluated after more than 8 years. A buccal bone wall less than 2 mm was found at all implant sites. A thin buccal bone wall less than 1 mm was found at 42% of the implant sites. In the CIT cohort, 8 patients had a missing buccal bone in the crestal area, although bone was present at the time of surgery. Alveolar process deficiency significantly deteriorated (P ≤ .046), whereas vertical soft tissue levels and PES remained stable over time in both cohorts. Patients expressed high overall satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial dimensional changes may be expected at the buccal aspect of single implants inserted in the premaxilla. As a result, contour augmentation procedures at the time of implant placement should be considered to counteract these bone alterations, even when implants are fully embedded in bone upon insertion.