A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Abduo, Jaafar; Gade, Lakshmi; Gill, H. I.; Judge, Roy; Darby, Ivan

doi:10.1111/cid.12541

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…as expected between teeth) or not, and while no significant correlations with peri-implant health/disease were found, there was a non-significant trend towards greater implant success with more naturally shaped embrasures, which warrants further research in a larger cohort. The possibility of placement in non-ideal sites is one of the advantages of implant therapy, but with the additional concerns of proximal contacts loosening over time and food impaction, [32][33][34]68,69 further research is warranted into interproximal implant hygiene, prosthetic design and optimal cleaning methods in non-anatomical situations.…”

Section: Patient-reported Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

Cheung

Hopcraft

Darby

2020

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study investigated the possible correlations between patient-performed implant hygiene and peri-implant success and disease, as well as patient-reported outcomes, in a community-based cohort. Methods: Fifty-one patients (78 implants) from two private general practices were surveyed on their dental implant treatment history, oral hygiene instructions (OHI) received, home hygiene habits and current implant concerns. Their dentition, plaque/calculus scores and clinical implant parameters were examined. Correlations between hygiene habits, risk factors, implant success and peri-implant disease rates were assessed. Results: Implants had a patient-reported mean time in function of 6.7 years. Floss (74.4%), interdental brushes (IDB) (44.9%) and mouthwash (39.7%) were commonly used, while 7.7% of implants were only cleaned by brushing. Over half (56.4%) of implants fulfilled the success criteria, 61.5% had peri-implant health, 24.4% had mucositis and 7.7% had peri-implantitis. Only brushing (P < 0.001) and detectable plaque/calculus (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with more peri-implant disease. Local prosthetic factors affecting cleaning accessibility significantly reduced implant success (P < 0.001). Patients reported mixed recall of implant OHI, 7.7% of implants were aesthetically unsatisfactory and 9.0% had peri-implant symptoms. Conclusions: Lack of interproximal cleaning and the presence of plaque/calculus were significantly associated with periimplant disease in a community-based general practice setting, and patients reported mixed recall of OHI.

show abstract

Section: Patient-reported Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

Cheung

Hopcraft

Darby

2020

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Single posterior implant-supported restorations fabricated using a scannable healing abutment versus a conventional scan body: A randomized controlled trial

Ramadan,

Razek,

Mohamed

et al. 2024

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single-Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial

Abduo

Lee

Sarfarazi

et al. 2020

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Encode protocol for restoring single dental implants simplifies the implant impression technique by using a specially coded transmucosal healing abutment. It allows recording of the implant position without the removal of healing abutment. This prospective randomized controlled clinical trial compares the 2-year clinical performance of the Encode and the conventional protocols for restoring single implants. A total of 47 implants were randomly allocated for restoration by the Encode (24 implants) and the conventional (23 implants) protocols. The implants were reviewed after 2 years to evaluate patient satisfaction, esthetics, prosthesis cleansability, mucosal health, bleeding on probing (BoP), metallic discoloration, probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone level (MBL), and quality of the proximal and occlusal contacts. In addition, all forms complications were reported. Twenty Encode and 17 conventional implants were reviewed. For all the variables, the 2 protocols were comparable. A consistent increase of open proximal contacts was detected for the 2 protocols. Two Encode (10.0%) and 4 conventional (21.1%) crowns had screw loosening that was predominantly associated with cross-pins. This had led to the failure of 2 conventional crowns. Three Encode (15.0%) and 2 conventional (11.8%) crowns displayed ceramic chipping. The Encode and the conventional crowns had survival rates of 100.0% and 89.5%, respectively. From the biologic, prosthetic and esthetic perspectives, the Encode and the conventional protocols provided a comparable clinical outcome over 2-year duration.

show abstract

A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract: After 1 year, the Encode protocol for restoring single implants appears to be comparable to the conventional protocol from the biological, prosthetic, and esthetic perspectives.

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Patient‐reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

Patient‐reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice

Single posterior implant-supported restorations fabricated using a scannable healing abutment versus a conventional scan body: A randomized controlled trial

Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single-Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About