| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Gualini, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Subcrestal placement of dental implants with an internal conical connection of 0.5 mm versus 1.5 mm: Outcome of a multicentre randomised controlled trial 1 year after loading
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:1, s. 73-82
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate whether there are some clinical benefits by placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests. Materials and methods: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns had both sites randomly allocated either to 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestal implant placement according to a split-mouth design at six centres. Implants were submerged in aesthetic areas or nonsubmerged in non-aesthetic areas for 3 months. Provisional acrylic crowns were delivered and were replaced after 2 months by definitive metal-ceramic crowns. Patients were followed to 1 year after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures; complications; aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES); peri-implant marginal bone level changes; and patient preference, recorded by blinded assessors. Results: One patient dropped out. One patient lost both implants to infection at impression taking. Three complications affected three patients of the 0.5 mm group and two complications affected two patients of the 1.5 mm subcrestally placed implants. One patient had complications at both implants. There were no statistically significant differences for complications between group (difference of proportion = 0.02; 95% Cl-0.06 to 0.09; P (McNemar test) = 1.000). At delivery of definitive crowns, 2 months after loading, the mean aesthetic score was 11.22 +/- 1.91 and 11.12 +/- 1.59 for the 0.5 and 1.5 mm group, respectively. At 1 year after loading, the mean aesthetic score was 12.09 +/- 1.66 and 12.10 +/- 1.52 for the 0.5 and 1.5 mm group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 2 months (P (paired t test) = 0.626) or at 1 year (P (paired t test) = 0.920). One year after loading, patients of the 0.5 mm lost on average 0.21 +/- 0.51 mm and those of the 1.5 mm group 0.11 +/- 0.36 mm, the difference being not statistically significant (difference = 0.10; 95% Cl-0.01 to 0.20; P (paired t test) = 0.078). Patients did not prefer any depth of the implant placement over the other. There were no differences in outcomes between centres. Conclusions: No statistical or clinical differences were noticed when placing implants 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally therefore clinicians can do as they prefer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Salina, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Subcrestal placement of dental implants with an internal conical connection of 0.5 mm versus 1.5 mm: Three-year after loading results of a multicentre within-person randomised controlled trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 12:2, s. 155-167
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate whether there are some clinical benefits by placing single dental implants either 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests. Materials and methods: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns had both sites randomly allocated either to 0.5-mm or 1.5-mm subcrestal implant placement according to a split-mouth design at six centres and submerged in aesthetic areas or non-submerged in non-aesthetic areas for 3 months. Provisional acrylic crowns were delivered and were replaced after 2 months by definitive metal-ceramic crowns. Patients were followed to 3 years after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink aesthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes and patient preference, recorded by blinded assessors. Results: One patient dropped out. One patient lost both implants for infection at impression taking. Seven complications affected seven patients of the 0.5-mm group and four complications affected four patients of the 1.5-mm subcrestal group. Three patients had complications at both implants. There were no statistically significant differences for complications between group (OR = 4; 95% CI: 0.45 to 35.79; P (McNemar test) = 0.375). At delivery of definitive crowns, 2 months after loading, the mean PES was 11.22 +/- 1.91 and 11.12 +/- 1.59 for the 0.5-and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. At 1 year after loading, the mean PES was 12.09 +/- 1.66 and 12.10 +/- 1.52 for the 0.5-and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. At 3 years after loading, the mean PES was 11.99 +/- 1.94 and 12.19 +/- 1.78 for the 0.5- and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 2 months (P = 0.626), at 1 year (P = 0.920) or at 3 years (P = 0.296). One year after loading, patients of the 0.5-mm group lost on average 0.21 +/- 0.51 mm and those of the 1.5-mm group 0.11 +/- 0.36 mm, the difference being not statistically significant (difference = 0.10 mm; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.20; P = 0.078). Three years after loading, patients of the 0.5-mm group lost on average 0.34 +/- 0.87 mm and those of the 1.5-mm group 0.19 +/- 0.54 mm, the difference being statistically significant (difference = 0.15 mm; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.046). Patients did not prefer any depth of the implant placement over the other. There were no differences in outcomes between centres. Conclusions: No appreciable clinical differences were noticed when placing implants 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally; therefore clinicians can do as they prefer.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
