Premium
Implant‐supported single tooth restoration in the aesthetic zone: transmucosal and submerged healing provide similar outcome when simultaneous bone augmentation is needed
Author(s) -
Cordaro Luca,
Torsello Ferruccio,
Chen Stephen,
Ganeles Jeffrey,
Brägger Urs,
Hämmerle Christoph
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02521.x
Subject(s) - medicine , bleeding on probing , dentistry , soft tissue , implant , randomized controlled trial , bone resorption , resorption , bone healing , clinical trial , surgery , periodontitis
Aim The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes after 2 years with bone level implants placed to restore a single missing teeth that needed simultaneous augmentation and were treated with a transmucosal or submerged approach. Methods This study analyzed a subset of patients included in an ongoing prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial ( RCT ) involving12 centers where patients were to be followed‐up to 5 years after loading. Of the 120 implants that were placed in the original study, and randomly assigned to submerged or non‐submerged healing, 52 needed simultaneous augmentation (28 women patients and 24 men patients, between 23 and 78 years of age). Twenty‐seven of them received implants with submerged healing ( AuS ), while in 25 patients the implants were inserted with a non‐submerged protocol ( AuNS ). At the 2‐year follow‐up visit, radiographic crestal bone level changes were recorded as well as soft tissue parameters included Pocket probing depth ( PPD ), bleeding on probing ( BoP ) and clinical attachment level ( CAL ) at teeth adjacent to the implant site. Results After 2 years a small amount of bone resorption was found in both groups (0.37 ± 0.49 mm in the AuS group and 0.54 ± 0.76 in the AuNS group; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between AuS Group and AuNS group for PPD (2.5 vs. 2.4 mm), BOP ( BOP + sites: 8.8% vs. 11.5%) and CAL (2.8 vs. 2.4 mm) at the 2‐year follow‐up visit. Conclusions When a single implant is placed in the aesthetic zone in conjunction with bone augmentation for a moderate peri‐implant defect, submerged and transmucosal healing determine similar outcome, hence there is no need to submerge an implant in this given clinical situation.