OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare ceramic and titanium implants with respect to the esthetic and clinical parameters, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS:Thirty patients received thirty implants (8-12 mm in length, 3.3 mm diameter and a tissue level design) to replace single teeth in the anterior maxilla. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a ceramic or a titanium implant. Esthetic, clinical parameters and PROMs were evaluated 18 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 12 months post final loading, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to esthetics. Mean Index Crown Aesthetic score was 6.31 (95% C.I. 4.59-8.04) and 6.07 (95% C.I. 4.21-7.93) for ceramic and titanium implants, respectively. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was 7.81 (95% C.I. 6.90-8.73) for ceramic implants and 7.86 (95% C.I. 7.11-8.60) for titanium implants, with no significant differences between groups. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the other clinical parameters and PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Monotype ceramic implants have proven to be a good treatment option in the upper anterior sector, showing favorable aesthetic results, being comparable to titanium implants. This clinical trial has been registered in clinical trials with the identifier CI_RCT_US16 and registration number NCT04707677. A retrospective registration of the clinical trial was carried out since registration was not mandatory on the date the study began. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare ceramic and titanium implants with respect to the esthetic and clinical parameters, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients received thirty implants (8-12 mm in length, 3.3 mm diameter and a tissue level design) to replace single teeth in the anterior maxilla. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a ceramic or a titanium implant. Esthetic, clinical parameters and PROMs were evaluated 18 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 12 months post final loading, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to esthetics. Mean Index Crown Aesthetic score was 6.31 (95% C.I. 4.59-8.04) and 6.07 (95% C.I. 4.21-7.93) for ceramic and titanium implants, respectively. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was 7.81 (95% C.I. 6.90-8.73) for ceramic implants and 7.86 (95% C.I. 7.11-8.60) for titanium implants, with no significant differences between groups. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the other clinical parameters and PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Monotype ceramic implants have proven to be a good treatment option in the upper anterior sector, showing favorable aesthetic results, being comparable to titanium implants. This clinical trial has been registered in clinical trials with the identifier CI_RCT_US16 and registration number NCT04707677. A retrospective registration of the clinical trial was carried out since registration was not mandatory on the date the study began. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.