Premium
Marginal Bone Preservation in Single‐Tooth Replacement: A 5‐Year Prospective Clinical Multicenter Study
Author(s) -
Donati Mauro,
La Scala Vincenzo,
Di Raimondo Rosario,
Speroni Stefano,
Testi Massimo,
Berglundh Tord
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12117
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , osteotome , abutment , randomization , randomized controlled trial , clinical trial , surgery , civil engineering , pathology , engineering
Background Few long‐term studies are available comparing immediate and conventional loading protocols of implant‐supported single‐tooth replacement. Purpose The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate prospectively the 5‐year clinical and radiological outcome of immediate functional loading implants used in single‐tooth replacement. Materials and Methods One hundred fifty‐one subjects, who required single‐tooth rehabilitation in the area from position 15 to 25 and from 35 to 45, were enrolled in eight private clinics in I taly. A randomization protocol was applied to allocate the implants in three treatment groups: one control group and two test groups. In the control group, implant placement was performed according to a conventional drilling procedure, and the implants were submerged for 3 months before abutment connection and loading. Implants allocated in the test group 1 and 2 followed an immediate functional loading protocol. While in test group 1, implant placement was performed according to conventional drilling procedure, in test group 2, a modified implant installation procedure (osteotome technique) was applied. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed during the 5‐year follow‐up, and technical and biological complications were registered. Results Although four implants (three in the test group 2 and one in the test group 1) were lost in the immediate functional loading groups in the first year of follow‐up, no further implant loss occurred in any of the treatment groups in the following monitoring period up to 5 years. No significant differences on marginal bone level changes were observed between the treatment groups. About 52% of all implants showed bone gain in the period from 1‐year to 5‐year follow‐up. The percentage of all implants that in the same interval of time showed bone loss was about 28%. Although few technical complications were recorded in the period of time up to 5 years, implants showing biological complication were 5.7%. Conclusion It is suggested that implants installed with a conventional installation technique together with an immediate functional loading protocol may be considered as a valid treatment alternative in a long‐term perspective when used in a single‐tooth replacement in an esthetic area.