| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:4, s. 331-344
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or external connections. Materials and methods: Two hundred patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism) requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an external connection (EC) or implants of the same type but with an internal connection (IC) (EZ Plus, Mega Gen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) at seven centres. Due to slight differences in implant design/components, IC implants were platform switched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 1 year after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Results: One hundred and two patients received '173 EC implants and 98 patients received 154 IC implants. Six patients dropped out with 11 EC implants and 3 patients with four IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 1-year post-loading. Two centres did not provide any periapical radiographs. Two prostheses supported by EC implants and one supported by IC implants failed (P = 1.000, difference = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.04). Three EC implants failed in 3 patients versus two IC implants in 1 patient (P = 0.6227, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03). EC implants were affected by nine complications in 9 patients versus six complications of IC implants in 6 patients (P = 0.5988, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis/implant failures and complications between the implant systems. One year after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.50, P =0.0629) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant manner: 0.98 mm for the EC implants and 0.85 mm for the IC implants. Five operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Conclusions: Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, preliminary short-term data (1-year post-loading) did not show any statistically significant differences between the two connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever one they preferred.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 9:2, s. 129-141
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or external connections. Materials and methods: One hundred and twenty patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism), requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an external connection (EC) or implants of the same type with an internal connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea), at four centres. Due to slight differences in implant design and components, IC implants were platformswitched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 5 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference, assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Results: Sixty patients received 96 EC implants and 60 patients received 107 IC implants. Three patients dropped out with four EC implants and five patients with ten IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 5-year post-loading. One prosthesis supported by EC implants and two by IC implants failed (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). One EC implant failed versus three IC implants in two patients (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). Ten complications occurred in 10 EC patients versus nine complications in 9 IC patients (P = 1.000, difference = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.15). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures and complications between the different connection types. Five years after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level estimates between the two groups (difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.56, P (ancova) = 0.505) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant way: 1.13 mm for the EC implants and 1.21 mm for the IC implants. Two operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Conclusions: Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, 5-year post-loading data did not show any statistically significant differences between the two connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever they preferred.
|
|
| 6. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
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
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:1, s. 57-72
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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%; Cl95%: 0%, 25%; P = 0.109). Eight patients were affected by complications: four patients from each group (difference = 1 %; Cl95%: -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; Cl95%: -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 Cl 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; Cl95%: -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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Soft tissue management for dental implants: what are the most effective techniques? A Cochrane systematic review
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 5:3, s. 221-238
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This review is based on a Cochrane systematic review entitled 'Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants' published in The Cochrane Library (see http://www.cochrane.org/ for information). Cochrane systematic reviews are regularly updated to include new research, and in response to comments and criticisms from readers. If you wish to comment on this review, please send your comments to the Cochrane website or to Marco Esposito. The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. The results of a Cochrane review can be interpreted differently, depending on people's perspectives and circumstances. Please consider the conclusions presented carefully. They are the opinions of the review authors, and are not necessarily shared by the Cochrane Collaboration. Purpose: To evaluate whether flapless procedures are beneficial for patients and which is the ideal flap design, whether soft tissue correction/augmentation techniques are beneficial for patients and which are the best techniques, whether techniques to increase the pen-implant keratinised mucosa are beneficial for patients and which are the best techniques, and which are the best suturing techniques/materials. Materials and methods: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to the 9th of June 2011 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of root-form osseointegrated dental implants, with a follow-up of at least 6 months after function, comparing various techniques to handle soft tissues in relation to dental implants. Primary outcome measures were prosthetic failures, implant failures and biological complications. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted at least in duplicate and independently by two or more review authors. The statistical unit was the patient and not the prosthesis, the procedure or the implant. Results were expressed using risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Seventeen potentially eligible RCTs were identified but only six trials with 138 patients in total could be included. The following techniques were compared in the six included studies: flapless placement of dental implants versus conventional flap elevation (2 trials, 56 patients), crestal versus vestibular incisions (1 trial, 10 patients), Erbium:YAG laser versus flap elevation at the second-stage surgery for implant exposure (1 trial, 20 patients), whether a connective tissue graft at implant placement could be effective in augmenting pen-implant tissues (1 split-mouth trial, 10 patients), and autograft versus an animal-derived collagen matrix to increase the height of the keratinised mucosa (1 trial, 40 patients). On a patient rather than per implant basis, implants placed with a flapless technique and implant exposures performed with laser lead to statistically significantly less postoperative pain than flap elevation. Sites augmented with soft tissue connective grafts had better aesthetics and thicker tissues. Both palatal autografts or the use of a porcine-derived collagen matrix are effective in increasing the height of keratinised mucosa at the cost of a 0.5 mm recession of pen-implant soft tissues. There were no other statistically significant differences for any of the remaining analyses. Conclusions: There is limited weak evidence suggesting that flapless implant placement is feasible and has been shown to reduce patient postoperative discomfort in adequately selected patients, that augmentation at implant sites with soft tissue grafts is effective in increasing soft tissue thickness and improving aesthetics, and that one technique to increase the height of keratinised mucosa using autografts or an animal-derived collagen matrix was able to achieve its goal but at the cost of a worsened aesthetic outcome (0.5 mm of recession). There is insufficient reliable evidence to provide recommendations on which is the ideal flap design, the best soft tissue augmentation technique, whether techniques to increase the width of keratinised/attached mucosa are beneficial to patients or not, and which are the best incision/suture techniques/materials. Properly designed and conducted RCTs, with at least 6 months of follow-up, are needed to provide reliable answers to these questions.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
