Search

Objective To evaluate the volumetric changes occurring from prosthesis insertion to the 1-year follow-up (FU) using one- and two-piece dental implants. Methods Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive one-piece or two-piece implants. Casts were obtained at baseline (insertion of final reconstruction) and at 1 year of loading. Finally, 33 pairs of casts ( BRA = 18, STM = 15) were deemed appropriate for volumetric analysis of the peri-implant tissues. If the patients had more than one implant, one was randomly selected for analysis. Casts were scanned to obtain stereolithography ( STL) files. Baseline and 1-year FU digital models were superimposed with an image analysis program. Linear and volumetric measurements were performed including (i) crown height changes (CHCs), (ii) volumetric changes, and (iii) changes in tissue thickness at three levels below the mucosal margin on the buccal side of the implants (at 1,3, and 5 mm). The Mann-Whitney U-test and the paired t-test were used to analyze the data between the two groups using the patient as the unit of analysis. Results No significant baseline differences were observed between the one- and two-piece groups for the linear measurements. The mean CHCs in the two-piece group amounted to 0.02 mm ( SD ± 0.32), whereas the one-piece group exhibited a change of −0.17 mm (±0.57). The mean volume changes (VCs) were −0.12 mm (±0.27) (two-piece group) and −0.03 mm (±0.29) (one-piece group). With regard to the changes in tissue thickness, the two-piece group presented a change of −0.15 mm (±0.20) at 1 mm, −0.06 mm (±0.20) at 3 mm, and −0.2 mm (±0.51) at 5 mm. The respective values for the one-piece group were −0.03 mm (±0.35), 0.01 mm (±0.28), and −0.01 mm (±0.51) at the three levels. None of the differences in linear measurements between baseline and the 1-year FU reached significance. Positive correlations were seen for tissue thickness changes at 1 and 3 mm for both groups ( P < 0.05). Significant positive correlations were found for VCs and tissue thickness at 1 mm for the two-piece group and for VCs and tissue thickness at 1,3, and 5 mm for the one-piece group ( P < 0.05). Conclusion Within the first year of loading, minimal changes occur with regard to tissue thickness, crown height, and facial volume for both implant types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants and implant-supported reconstructions using a 1-piece ( STM) and a 2-piece ( BRA) dental implant system. Material and methods Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive STM or BRA implants. The implants restored with fixed or removable prostheses. Baseline measurements (day of loading) and 1-year measurements included demographic and radiological parameters with details of the surgical procedures, type of prosthesis, survival of implants, and marginal bone-level changes. The Mann-Whitney U-test and the paired t-test were used to analyze the data between the two groups and within the groups within 1 year on an implant- and patient-based level. Results In all 60 patients, implants were placed and supported 65 final reconstructions (33 BRA, 32 STM). One implant was lost in the STM group at 9 months (98.5% survival rate), none were lost in the BRA group (100%). On the implant level, the median marginal bone levels were −1.02 mm (interquartile range ( IQR) 0.41 mm) at baseline and −1.08 mm (0.59 mm) 1 year later ( BRA) and −0.51 mm (0.93 mm) and −0.75 mm (1.14 mm) ( STM). The patient level values were −0.98 mm (0.47 mm) at baseline and −1.10 mm (0.71 mm) 1 year later ( BRA) and −0.43 mm (0.59 mm) and −0.71 mm (0.97 mm) ( STM). The differences between the two groups at both time-points were statistically significant in the patient-level analysis with higher bone levels for the STM group ( P < 0.05). The changes in mean marginal bone levels on the implant level amounted to −0.05 mm ( SD±0.32 mm) ( BRA) and to −0.27 mm (±0.52 mm) ( STM). Patient-level values were −0.06 mm (± 0.37 mm) ( BRA) and −0.25 mm (±0.35 mm) ( STM). These differences between the groups reached statistical significance on the patient level with less bone loss in the BRA group ( P < 0.05). Conclusions Within the first year of functional loading, high survival rates and minimal changes of marginal bone levels were found for both implant systems used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To compare the soft tissue stability (STA) around single implants previously augmented with either subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) from the lateral palate (LP) or from the tuberosity area (TA). Material and Methods: Twenty‐nine patients showing 33 implants with buccal volume deficiency randomly received SCTG from LP (control group/CG) or TA (test group/TG). At 4 months (FU‐4) the definitive crown was installed and an intra‐oral scan performed. At 12 months (FU‐12), a new scan was registered. Between FU‐4 and FU‐12 STA was evaluated by STL image superimposition. Clinical parameters and the modified pink aesthetic score (PES) (Fürhauser et al. 2005) were recorded. Results: After FU‐4 both tissues demonstrated a similar STA without statistically significant differences (SSD). The mean soft tissue changes were 0.03 ± 0.22 mm for CG and 0.04 ± 0.23 mm for TG (p =.870). SSD were observed for changes in keratinized tissue (KT) with greater stability for TG (0 ± 0.32 mm) compared with CG (−0.3 ± 0.33 mm) (p =.002). PES resulted in mean values of 8.37 ± 2.46 for CG and 8.54 ± 2.43 for TG (p=.59). Conclusions: Both groups demonstrated similar STA between the definitive crown placement and 12 months, while greater stability of the KT gained was observed in TG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a well‐defined treatment performed to reduce bone dimensional changes occurring during the healing of post‐extraction sockets to allow for adequate implant placement. Leukocyte and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) has been showing to potentially promote bone and tissue regeneration during wound healing. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate its efficacy for ARP when applied to fresh extraction sockets, in comparison with spontaneous healing. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐seven patients with hopeless non‐molar teeth were treated. After randomization, fresh extraction sockets were either filled with L‐PRF or allowed to heal spontaneously. CBCTs and intraoral scans were obtained immediately after extraction and at 4 months. Through superimposition of the obtained images, changes in the horizontal ridge width, height, buccal volume, and ridge contour changes were measured, as well as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM's). Results: The ridge dimensions changed similarly in both groups. Although less reduction occurred in the test group at 1 mm from the bone crest, differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Application of L‐PRF did not prevent reductions of ridge contours, neither in the linear vertical aspect nor in volumetric changes. There were no differences between groups in the need for bone regeneration when placing implants. Patients in both groups reported similar outcomes in terms of bleeding, pain, inflammation, and function at 1 and 4 weeks postoperatively. Conclusion: Alveolar preservation with L‐PRF neither minimized bone resorption occurring after tooth extraction in non‐molar sites nor reduced the need for bone regeneration when placing implants. Furthermore, its use did not improve PROM's. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]