An open prospective single cohort multicenter study evaluating the novel, tapered, conical connection implants supporting single crowns in the anterior and premolar maxilla: interim 1-year results

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this multicenter prospective clinical study was to evaluate anodized tapered implants with a conical connection and integrated platform shifting placed in the anterior and premolar maxilla.Materials and methodsThe study enrolled patients requiring single-tooth restorations in healed sites of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. All implants were immediately temporized. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were conducted at implant insertion, 6 months, and 1 year. Outcome measures included bone remodeling, cumulative survival rate (CSR), success rate, soft-tissue health and esthetics, and patient satisfaction. Bone remodeling and pink esthetic score were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. CSR was calculated using life table analysis. Other soft-tissue outcomes were analyzed using sign tests.ResultsOut of 97 enrolled patients (102 implants), 87 patients (91 implants) completed the 1-year visit. Marginal bone remodeling was −0.85 ± 1.36 mm. After the expected initial bone loss, a mean bone gain of 0.11 ± 1.05 mm was observed between 6 months and 1 year. The CSR was 99.0%, and the cumulative success rate was 97.0%. Partial or full papilla was observed at 30.8% of sites at baseline, 87.2% at 6 months, and 90.5% at 1 year. Soft-tissue response, esthetics, and patient satisfaction all improved during the study period.ConclusionsBone gain was observed following the expected initial bone loss, and soft-tissue outcomes improved suggesting favorable tissue response using anodized tapered conical connection implants.Clinical relevanceRapid stabilization of bone remodeling and robust papilla regeneration indicate favorable tissue healing promoted by the conical connection, platform-shift design.Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT02175550

A prospective multicenter evaluation of immediately functionalized tapered conical connection implants for single restorations in maxillary anterior and premolar sites: 3-year results

“…Among definitive abutments, 56 (58.3%) received monolithic zirconia abutments and 40 (41.7%) received titanium abutments. These numbers differ from those provided in the 1-year report [15] because patients' medical histories were re-evaluated and those abutments defined as Bother^were classified into their appropriate groups. Among definitive crowns, 89 implants (92.7%) received ceramic, 4 (4.2%) received acrylic, and 3 (3.1%) received porcelain veneers.…”

“…A detailed description of the trial parameters and measures have been published previously [15]. In brief, patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older, were in good health physically and mentally, could commit to the study for the 5-year study period, had a full-mouth bleeding on probing (BOP) index and plaque index score no higher than 25%, had a tooth that was lost or extracted at least 2 months before implant placement, and was indicated for the procedure.…”

“…Several implant features have been shown to improve hard and soft tissue outcomes. One example is the use of conical implant-abutment connections, which are intended to provide increased mechanical stability and tighter connections [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Platform shifting has also been shown to reduce marginal bone level change (ΔMBL) and improved soft-tissue outcomes [2, 7-9, 11, 16, 18-22].…”

Immediate and flapless implant insertion and provisionalization using autogenous bone grafts in the esthetic zone: 5‐year results

“…The contemporary patient's demands are not only a “functionally stable implant”, but moreover an esthetic and functional rehabilitation in short treatment time (Arora, Khzam, Roberts, Bruce & Ivanovski, ; Fugl et al., ). Thus, on principle, the treatment concept of immediate insertion and provisionalization seems to fit perfectly to the anterior esthetic zone, but soft tissue changes and the esthetic results around those implant restoration are not always favorable.…”

Associations between sleep bruxism and (peri-)implant complications: lessons learned from a clinical study

“…Individuals receiving dental implants often have gone through a long period of dental treatment of teeth that were eventually lost, before getting into implant treatment trajectories. However, prospective cohort studies are not uncommon in the field of oral implantology (e.g., see 8,23 ). Therefore the tremendous difficulty in finding individuals willing to participate was not anticipated.…”