Esthetic Outcome of Implant Supported Crowns With and Without Peri‐Implant Conditioning Using Provisional Fixed Prosthesis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract

A provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning does improve the final esthetic result.

Influence of the fixed implant‐supported provisional phase on the esthetic final outcome of implant‐supported crowns: 3‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

“…In an investigation by Wittneben et al,5 mucosa profile changes were analyzed digitally before and after soft tissue conditioning with a fixed implant provisional using the "dynamic compression technique." Previously published results of the 1-year and the present 3-year data confirm a statistically significant difference in the esthetic outcome of the modPES ratings 6. The change was more than doubled compared to the initial profile of the healing abutments 5.…”

“…Therefore, the implementation of a distinct provisional phase was recommended.The findings of the present randomized clinical trial underline these outcomes. Cohort group without a provisional phase mean value was 4.9 after 1 year and 5.5 after 3 years 6. Previously published results of the 1-year and the present 3-year data confirm a statistically significant difference in the esthetic outcome of the modPES ratings 6.…”

“…6 All patients received a platform switched implant with a chemically modified, sandblasted, and acid-etched surface (Bone Level Implant, RC, SLActive, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) using the early implant placement concept and simultaneous contour augmentation. 6 All patients received a platform switched implant with a chemically modified, sandblasted, and acid-etched surface (Bone Level Implant, RC, SLActive, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) using the early implant placement concept and simultaneous contour augmentation.…”

“…The change was more than doubled compared to the initial profile of the healing abutments 5. Cohort group including provisionalization presented mean data of 8.7 out of 10 (maximum) after 1 year and 8.1 after 3 years 6. These two treatment options were compared in the present trial and the esthetic outcome clinically documented.…”

“…6 The aim of this randomized clinical trail was to determine whether the use of a provisional implant supported crown leads to a continued esthetic benefit on implant crowns that have been inserted in the anterior zone. 6 The aim of this randomized clinical trail was to determine whether the use of a provisional implant supported crown leads to a continued esthetic benefit on implant crowns that have been inserted in the anterior zone.…”