| 1. |
- Cannizzaro, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Immediate loading of two (fixed-on-2) vs four (fixed-on-4) implants placed with a flapless technique supporting mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses: 3-year results from a pilot randomised controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:2, s. 133-145
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate the outcome of two vs four implants placed flapless in fully edentulous mandibles and immediately restored with metal-resin screw-retained cross-arch prostheses. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 patients from two different centres were randomised: 30 to the fixed-on-2 group and 30 to the fixed-on-4 group according to a parallel group design. To be immediately loaded implants had to be inserted with a minimum torque of 40 Newton/cm (Ncm). Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, complications, and marginal bone level changes. Results: Flaps were raised in 18 patients. Two implants in two patients did not reach the planned insertion torque and were replaced immediately by larger diameter ones. Three years after loading, two patients dropped out from the fixed-on-2 group and one from the fixed-on-4 group. No implant failure or prosthetic failure occurred. A total of 12 fixed-on-2 patients were affected by one complication each vs 13 fixed-on-4 patients. There were no statistically significant differences for complications between groups (difference in proportion = -0.03; 95% CI -29 to 0.22; P [Fisher's exact test] = 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences for marginal peri-implant bone loss between the two groups (mean difference = 0.14; CI 95% -0.17 to 0.45; P [ANCOVA] = 0.356), with both groups losing marginal bone in a statistically significant way (1.70 mm for fixed-on-2 implants and 1.56 mm for fixed-on-4 implants). There were statistically significant differences between the two centres, with more bone being lost for the Bologna centre (2.18 vs 1.13 mm; P (ANCOVA) < 0.001). Conclusions: Up to 3 years after loading, these preliminary results suggest that immediately loaded mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses can be supported by only two dental implants. Longer follow-ups (about 10 years) are needed to properly evaluate this therapeutic option.
|
|
| 2. |
- Checchi, V., et al.
(författare)
-
Wide diameter immediate post-extractive implants vs delayed placement of normal-diameter implants in preserved sockets in the molar region: 1-year postloading outcome of a randomised controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:3, s. 263-278
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of 6.0 to 8.0 mm-wide diameter implants, placed immediately after tooth extraction, with conventional 4.0 or 5.0 mm diameter implants placed in a preserved socket after a 4-month period of healing in the molar region. Materials and Methods: Just after extraction of one or two molar teeth, and with no vertical loss of the buccal bone in relation to the palatal wall, 100 patients requiring immediate post-extractive implants were randomly allocated to immediate placement of one or two 6.0 to 8.0 mm-wide diameter implants (immediate group; 50 patients) or for socket preservation using a porcine bone substitute covered by a resorbable collagen barrier (delayed group; 50 patients), according to a parallel group design in one centre. Bone-to-implant gaps were filled with autogenous bone retrieved with a trephine drill used to prepare the implant sites for the immediate wide diameter post-extractive implants. Four months after socket preservation, one to two 4.0 or 5.0 mm-wide delayed implants were placed. Implants were loaded 4 months after placement with fixed provisional restorations in acrylic, and replaced after 4 months by fixed, definitive, metal-ceramic restorations. Patients were followed to 1 year after loading. Outcome measures were: implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, patient satisfaction, number of appointments and surgical interventions recorded, when possible, by blinded assessors. Results: Three patients dropped out 1 year after loading from the immediate group vs six from the delayed group. Five implants out of 47 failed in the immediate group (10.6%) vs two out 44 (4.6%) in the delayed group, the difference being not statistically significant (difference in proportion = 6.0%, 95% CI: -8.8% to 20.8%, P = 0.436). In the immediate group 10 patients were affected by 10 complications, while in the delayed group four patients were affected by four complications. The difference was not statistically significant (difference in proportion = 12%, 95% CI: -2% to 26%, P = 0.084). At delivery of the definitive prostheses, 4 months after loading, the mean total PES score was 9.65 ± 1.62 and 10.44 ± 1.47 in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively. At 1 year after loading, the mean total PES score was 9.71 ± 2.71 and 10.86 ± 1.37 in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively. The Total PES score was statistically significantly better at delayed implants both at 4 months (mean difference = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.53; P = 0.03) and at 1 year (mean difference = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.13 to 2.17; P = 0.02). Marginal bone levels at implant insertion (after bone grafting) were 0.04 mm for immediate and 0.11 mm for delayed implants, which was statistically significantly different (mean difference = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.12; P < 0.0001). One year after loading, patients in the immediate group lost on average 1.06 mm and those from the delayed group 0.63 mm, the difference being statistically significant (mean difference = 0.43 mm; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). All patients were fully or partially satisfied both for function and aesthetics, and would undergo the same procedure again both at 4 months and 1 year after loading. Patients from the immediate group required on average 7.48 ± 1.45 visits to the clinician and 2.14 ± 0.49 surgical interventions and to have their definitive prostheses delivered vs 10.30 ± 0.99 visits and 3.08 ± 0.40 surgical interventions for the delayed group, the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.001 for visits, and P < 0.001 for surgical interventions). Conclusions: Preliminary 1 year follow-up data suggest that immediate placement of 6.0 to 8.0 mm wide diameter implants in molar extraction sockets yielded inferior aesthetic outcomes than ridge preservation and delayed placement of conventional 4.0 to 5.0 mm diameter implants. Conflict of interest statement: This trial was partially funded by the manufacturer of the implants evaluated in his investigation (MegaGen Implant Co, Gyeongbuk, South Korea). However, data belonged to the authors and in no way did the manufacturer interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results. © Quintessenz.
|
|
| 3. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Immediate, immediate-delayed (6 weeks) and delayed (4 months) post-extractive single implants: 1-year post-loading data from a randomised controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 10:1, s. 11-26
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of single implants placed immediately after tooth extraction with implants placed 6 weeks after tooth extraction (immediate-delayed placement), and with implants placed after 4-month extraction and socket healing (delayed placement). Materials and methods: Two-hundred and ten (210) patients requiring a single implant-supported crown to replace a tooth to be extracted were randomised to receive immediate post-extractive implants (70 patients), immediate-delayed implants at 6 weeks (70 patients), and delayed implants after 4 months of healing (70 patients) according to a parallel group design. When needed, patients of the immediate and immediate-delayed group had the socket grafted with a bone substitute and covered with a resorbable membrane at implant placement. Sockets randomised to delayed implants were grafted in the same manner if poorly preserved or in the aesthetic areas (from second upper to second upper premolars). Implants inserted with at least 25 Ncm torque were left to heal unloaded for 4 months, whereas those inserted with less than 25 Ncm were left to heal unloaded for 6 months. Temporary crowns were delivered and were to be replaced by definitive ones after 4 months. Outcome measures were crown and implant failures, complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, aesthetically assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction recorded by blinded assessors. Patients were followed up to 1 year post-loading. Results: One year after loading, three patients dropped out from the immediate group, five from the immediate-delayed group, and six from the delayed group. Four implants (6%) failed in the immediate, four (6.2%) in the immediate-delayed, and one (1.6%) from the delayed group (P (chisquare test) = 0.369). Apart from the crowns (which failed due to implant losses), no other crown had to be remade. Six immediate, six immediate-delayed and four delayed implants were affected by one complication each (P (chi-square test) = 0.792). Mean peri-implant marginal bone loss after 1 year was-0.25 +/- 0.17 mm (CI 95%-0.29; -0.20) at immediate,-0.29 +/- 0.14 mm (CI 95% -0.32; -0.25) at immediate-delayed, and-0.31 +/- 0.16 mm (Cl 95%-0.35; -0.27) at delayed placed implants (P (Kruskal-Wallis test) = 0.015). One year after loading, the mean total aesthetic score was 12.52, 12.49 and 11.78 at the immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed groups, respectively (P (Kruskal-Wallis test) < 0.001). All patients were fully satisfied both with function and aesthetics, and would undergo the same procedure again, with four exceptions (one from the immediate, one from the immediate-delayed and two from the delayed group), who were only partially satisfied with aesthetics (P = 0.785). Conclusions: No statistically significant differences for failures, complications and patient satisfaction were observed when placing single implants immediately, 6 weeks or 4 months after tooth extraction; nevertheless, failures were more frequent at immediate and immediate-delayed placed implants. Bone level changes were similar between the different procedures, but aesthetics were better results at immediate and immediate-delayed implants.
|
|
