Immediate provisionalization in the esthetic zone: 1-year interim results from a prospective single-cohort multicenter study evaluating 3.0-mm-diameter tapered implants
- 219 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsNarrow diameter implants Immediate loading Esthetic zone Single tooth
Professional writing assistance was provided by Katherine H. Sippel, PhD, at BioScience Writers, LLC.
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.
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.
All patients provided written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02465.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Al-Sabbagh M (2006) Implants in the esthetic zone. Dent Clin N Am 50(391–407):viGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a35626 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Jemt T (1997) Regeneration of gingival paillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:327–333Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.1987.tb00298.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12156 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02254.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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