Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Aug;15(4):517-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00417.x. Epub 2012 Jan 11.

Four modalities of single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: a clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic evaluation.

Author information

1
University of Ghent, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dental School, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent, Belgium. jan.cosyn@ugent.be

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To document the outcome of single implants in the anterior maxilla following four routine treatment modalities when performed by experienced clinicians in daily practice using the same implant system and biomaterials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

A retrospective study in patients who had been treated by two periodontists and two prosthodontists in 2006 and 2007 was conducted. The four treatment modalities practically covered every clinical situation and included standard implant treatment (SIT), immediate implant treatment (IIT), implant treatment in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR), and implant treatment in grafted bone (BGR) harvested from the chin. All implants were installed via flap surgery. Patients were clinically and radiographically examined. Complications were registered and the aesthetic outcome (pink esthetic score [PES] and white esthetic score [WES]) was rated. A blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment performed all evaluations. Patient's aesthetic satisfaction was also registered.

RESULTS:

One hundred four out of 115 eligible patients (44 SIT, 28 IIT, 18 GBR, and 14 BGR) received at least one single NobelReplace tapered TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) implant in the anterior maxilla and were available for evaluation. Clinical parameters (implant survival: 93%, mean plaque level: 24%, mean bleeding on probing: 33%, and mean probing depth: 3.2 mm) and mean bone level (1.19 mm) did not differ significantly between treatment modalities. Postoperative complications were more common following GBR/BGR (>61%) when compared with SIT/IIT (<18%) (p < .001). BGR was in 4/14 patients associated with permanent sensory complications at the donor site. Technical complications occurred in 9/104 patients. SIT and IIT showed similar soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 10.07 and 10.88, respectively), however major alveolar process deficiency was common (>15%). PES was 9.65 for GBR. BGR showed inferior soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 9.00; p = .045) and shorter distal papillae were found following GBR/BGR (p = .009). Periodontal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 13.0, p < .001), GBR/BGR (OR: 4.3, p = .004), and a thin-scalloped gingival biotype (OR: 3.7, p = .011) increased the risk for incomplete distal papillae. WES was 7.98 for all patients considered. Poor agreement was found between objective and subjective aesthetic ratings.

CONCLUSIONS:

All treatment modalities were predictable from a clinical and radiographic point of view. However, advanced reconstructive surgery, especially BGR, increased the risk for complications and compromised aesthetics. Research is required on the prevention and minimally invasive treatment of buccal bone defects at the time of tooth loss to avoid complex therapy.

KEYWORDS:

bone augmentation; dental implants; guided bone regeneration; immediate; pink esthetic score; single tooth

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center