David Furze1, Ashley Byrne2, Sonia Alam1, Urs Brägger3, Daniel Wismeijer4, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben3,5. 1. Private Practice, Dorset, UK. 2. Byrnes Dental Laboratory, Oxford, UK. 3. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry & Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, ACTA, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate whether the use of a provisional implant-supported crown improves the final esthetic outcome of implant crowns that are placed within esthetic sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty endosseous implants were inserted in sites 13 to 23 (FDI) in 20 patients. Following the reopening procedure, a randomization process assigned them to either cohort group 1: a provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning using the "dynamic compression technique" or cohort group 2: without a provisional phase. Screw-retained all ceramic crowns were inserted. Clinical follow-up appointments were completed at 36 months evaluating clinical, radiographic outcomes, and implant success and survival. RESULTS: After 3 years, all implants survived; one implant-supported crown was excluded from the study due to adjacent tooth failure replaced with a further implant supported crown. Modified pink esthetic score (ModPES) scores were significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (P = .018); white esthetic scores (WES) were not statistically different between both groups (P = .194). Mean values of combined modPES and WES were 15.6 for group 1, with a SD of 3.20. Group 2 had a mean combined modPES and WES of 12.2, with a SD of 3.86. Mean bone loss after 3 year was -0.05 and -0.04 mm for groups 1 and 2 respectively, without being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Fixed implant-supported provisionals improve the final esthetic outcome of the peri-implant mucosa.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate whether the use of a provisional implant-supported crown improves the final esthetic outcome of implant crowns that are placed within esthetic sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty endosseous implants were inserted in sites 13 to 23 (FDI) in 20 patients. Following the reopening procedure, a randomization process assigned them to either cohort group 1: a provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning using the "dynamic compression technique" or cohort group 2: without a provisional phase. Screw-retained all ceramic crowns were inserted. Clinical follow-up appointments were completed at 36 months evaluating clinical, radiographic outcomes, and implant success and survival. RESULTS: After 3 years, all implants survived; one implant-supported crown was excluded from the study due to adjacent tooth failure replaced with a further implant supported crown. Modified pink esthetic score (ModPES) scores were significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (P = .018); white esthetic scores (WES) were not statistically different between both groups (P = .194). Mean values of combined modPES and WES were 15.6 for group 1, with a SD of 3.20. Group 2 had a mean combined modPES and WES of 12.2, with a SD of 3.86. Mean bone loss after 3 year was -0.05 and -0.04 mm for groups 1 and 2 respectively, without being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Fixed implant-supported provisionals improve the final esthetic outcome of the peri-implant mucosa.