Ali Bushahri1, Oliver D Kripfgans2,3, Furat George4, I-Ching Wang1, Hom-Lay Wang1, Hsun-Liang Chan1. 1. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences and Prosthodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediately placed single implants with either immediate provisionalization (test) or delayed restoration (control) were followed for up to 1 year in our previous randomized clinical trial. Peri-implant tissues continue to remodel after implants are in function. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the facial mucosal level changes in the intermediate term between the two groups and to study potential factors influencing the mucosal level change. METHODS: Patients who had already completed the previous clinical trial by receiving a single immediately placed implant were re-invited to this study. The facial mucosal level as well as the other peri-implant hard and soft tissue dimensions and conditions were measured clinically, radiographically and with ultrasound. These data were compared between the test and control implants. The mucosal level change as the function of the final crown contour, measured as the abutment-crown angle (ACA), was estimated with a linear regression model. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (n of test/control = 16/12) with a mean 30-month follow-up were recruited. The mean mucosal level change was -0.38 mm (control) and 0.06 mm (test), without statistical difference between the two groups. The other clinical, radiographic, and ultrasound parameters were not statistically different. ACA was statistically significant associated with the recession (P = 0.02). The estimate effect was 0.25 mm per 10° increase (adjusted R2 = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.49 mm). After adjusting for vertical implant position, implant abutment angle and the group, the effect became borderline significant (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant tissues, including the mucosal level change of immediately placed implants with either immediate provisionalization or delayed restoration remained stable and did not differ between the groups in the intermediate term. The final crown angle, influenced by implant position and abutment angle, might be associated with mucosal margin level change.
BACKGROUND: Immediately placed single implants with either immediate provisionalization (test) or delayed restoration (control) were followed for up to 1 year in our previous randomized clinical trial. Peri-implant tissues continue to remodel after implants are in function. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the facial mucosal level changes in the intermediate term between the two groups and to study potential factors influencing the mucosal level change. METHODS: Patients who had already completed the previous clinical trial by receiving a single immediately placed implant were re-invited to this study. The facial mucosal level as well as the other peri-implant hard and soft tissue dimensions and conditions were measured clinically, radiographically and with ultrasound. These data were compared between the test and control implants. The mucosal level change as the function of the final crown contour, measured as the abutment-crown angle (ACA), was estimated with a linear regression model. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (n of test/control = 16/12) with a mean 30-month follow-up were recruited. The mean mucosal level change was -0.38 mm (control) and 0.06 mm (test), without statistical difference between the two groups. The other clinical, radiographic, and ultrasound parameters were not statistically different. ACA was statistically significant associated with the recession (P = 0.02). The estimate effect was 0.25 mm per 10° increase (adjusted R2 = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.49 mm). After adjusting for vertical implant position, implant abutment angle and the group, the effect became borderline significant (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant tissues, including the mucosal level change of immediately placed implants with either immediate provisionalization or delayed restoration remained stable and did not differ between the groups in the intermediate term. The final crown angle, influenced by implant position and abutment angle, might be associated with mucosal margin level change.