Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 2299–2308 | Cite as

Immediate provisionalization in the esthetic zone: 1-year interim results from a prospective single-cohort multicenter study evaluating 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants

  • Martin Kolinski
  • Pablo Hess
  • Sonia Leziy
  • Bertil Friberg
  • Gionata Bellucci
  • Davide Trisciuoglio
  • Wilfried Wagner
  • Maximilian Moergel
  • Alessandro Pozzi
  • Jörg Wiltfang
  • Eleonore Behrens
  • Werner Zechner
  • Christoph Vasak
  • Paul Weigl
Original Article



The aim of this interim analysis of a 5-year prospective multicenter study is to evaluate clinical and radiological performance of immediately provisionalized 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants.

Materials and methods

Patients needing implant rehabilitation of maxillary lateral incisors or mandibular lateral and central incisors were treated with 3.0-mm-diameter implants placed in extraction or healed sites and immediately provisionalized. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at implant insertion, 6 months thereafter, and are ongoing. Marginal bone levels and changes, complications, the papilla, plaque, and bleeding indices, and the pink esthetic score (PES) were evaluated at each follow-up visit.


Of 112 enrolled patients, 77 patients (91 implants) met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-one patients with 82 implants completed the 1-year follow-up. Three implants failed yielding a CSR of 96.7%. All failures occurred within the first 3 months after implant insertion. Marginal bone level changes from insertion to 6 months was − 0.57 ± 1.30 mm (n = 75) and from insertion to 12 months − 0.25 ± 1.38 mm (n = 72). Fifteen non-serious complications were recorded. Papilla index score and PES improved at the 1-year follow-up. Plaque formation and bleeding-on-probing showed no statistically significant differences between the 6-month and the 1-year visit.


This 1-year analysis demonstrated high survival, stable bone levels, and healthy soft tissue with 3.0-mm-diameter implants.

Clinical implications

Narrow diameter implants are a safe and predictable treatment option in patients with limited bone volume and/or limited interdental space and eligible for immediate loading protocols.


Narrow diameter implants Immediate loading Esthetic zone Single tooth 



Professional writing assistance was provided by Katherine H. Sippel, PhD, at BioScience Writers, LLC.

Funding information

This study was supported by Nobel Biocare Services AG, Kloten, Switzerland (grant T-176).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Drs. MK and WZ received grants from Nobel Biocare while the study was conducted. Dr. WZ received non-financial support from Straumann as well as financial support from Nobel Biocare and ZimmerBiomet unrelated to this study. Drs. PH, SL, BF, GB, DT, WW, MM, AP, JW, EB, CV, and PW have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

All patients provided written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study.


  1. 1.
    Slagter KW, den Hartog L, Bakker NA, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM (2014) Immediate placement of dental implants in the esthetic zone: a systematic review and pooled analysis. J Periodontol 85(7):e241–e250. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC (2004) Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(Suppl):43–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul S, Held U (2013) Immediate supracrestal implant placement with immediate temporization in the anterior dentition: a retrospective study of 31 implants in 26 patients with up to 5.5-years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 24(6):710–717. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Sabbagh M (2006) Implants in the esthetic zone. Dent Clin N Am 50(391–407):viGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jivraj S, Chee W (2006) Treatment planning of implants in the aesthetic zone. Br Dent J 201(2):77–89. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacLean S, Hermans M, Villata L, Polizzi G, Sisodia N, Cherry JE (2016) A retrospective multicenter case series evaluating a novel 3.0-mm expanding tapered body implant for the rehabilitation of missing incisors. Quintessence Int 47(4):297–306. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polizzi G, Fabbro S, Furri M, Herrmann I, Squarzoni S (1999) Clinical application of narrow Branemark system implants for single-tooth restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14(4):496–503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B (2014) Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(Suppl):43–54. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Steenberghe D (1997) Outcomes and their measurement in clinical trials of endosseous oral implants. Ann Periodontol 2(1):291–298. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jemt T (1997) Regeneration of gingival paillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:327–333Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP (1987) The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2(4):145–151. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G (2005) Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(6):639–644. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lekholm U, Zarb G (1985) Patient selection and preparation. In: Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointergration in clinical dentistry. Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc., Chicago, pp 201–202Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cosyn J, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R (2013) Soft tissue preservation and pink aesthetics around single immediate implant restorations: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15(6):847–857. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cristalli MP, Marini R, La Monaca G, Sepe C, Tonoli F, Annibali S (2015) Immediate loading of post-extractive single-tooth implants: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(9):1070–1079. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sierra-Sanchez JL, Martinez-Gonzalez A, Garcia-Sala Bonmati F, Manes-Ferrer JF, Brotons-Oliver A (2014) Narrow-diameter implants: are they a predictable treatment option? A literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 19:e74–e81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Mokti M, Hämmerle CH, Weber HP, Jung RE (2013) Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 40(11):1052–1061. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bell C, Bell RE (2014) Immediate restoration of NobelActive implants placed into fresh extraction sites in the anterior maxilla. J Oral Implantol 40(4):455–458. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruno V, O'Sullivan D, Badino M, Catapano S (2014) Preserving soft tissue after placing implants in fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone and a prosthetic template for interim crown fabrication: a prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 111:195–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J (2012) How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(5):515–525. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A (2009) Immediate versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary lateral incisor: a 3-year randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 80(9):1393–1398. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galindo-Moreno P, Nilsson P, King P, Becktor J, Speroni S, Schramm A, Maiorana C (2012) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded narrow diameter implants - 1-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(5):609–616. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oyama K, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J (2012) Immediate provisionalization of 3.0-mm-diameter implants replacing single missing maxillary and mandibular incisors: 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27(1):173–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allum SR, Tomlinson RA, Joshi R (2008) The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(6):553–559. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    AY W, Hsu JT, Chee W, Lin YT, Fuh LJ, Huang HL (2016) Biomechanical evalutaiton of one-piece and two-piece small-diameter dental implants: in-vitro experimental and three-dimensional finite element analyses. J Formos Med Assoc 115(9):794–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bömicke W, Gabbert O, Koob A, Krisam J, Rammelsberg P (2017) Comparison of immediately loaded flapless-placed one-piece implants and flapped-placed conventionally loaded two-piece implants, both fitted with all-ceramic single crowns, in the posterior mandible: 3-year results from a randomised controlled pilot trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 10(2):179–195PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kolinski
    • 1
  • Pablo Hess
    • 2
  • Sonia Leziy
    • 3
  • Bertil Friberg
    • 4
  • Gionata Bellucci
    • 5
  • Davide Trisciuoglio
    • 5
  • Wilfried Wagner
    • 6
  • Maximilian Moergel
    • 6
  • Alessandro Pozzi
    • 7
  • Jörg Wiltfang
    • 8
  • Eleonore Behrens
    • 8
  • Werner Zechner
    • 9
  • Christoph Vasak
    • 9
  • Paul Weigl
    • 2
  1. 1.Private PracticeKolinski and Crosby LtdSt CharlesUSA
  2. 2.Goethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Imperio GroupNorth VancouverCanada
  4. 4.Brånemark ClinicGöteborgSweden
  5. 5.IRCCS Cà Granda Foundation, Maggiore Policlinico HospitalUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  6. 6.University Medical Center MainzMainzGermany
  7. 7.University of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly
  8. 8.University Clinic KielKielGermany
  9. 9.School of DentistryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations