Evaluation of the Treatment of Partially Edentulous Patients With Bone Level Tapered Implants: 24-Month Clinical and Radiographic Follow-Up

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess, over a period of 24 months, the clinical and radiographic outcomes in partially edentulous patients receiving bone level tapered (BLT) implants. 33 partially edentulous patients and 50 implants were evaluated. Subjects received single or multiple implants in the posterior maxilla. Clinical and radiographic measurements of vertical bone levels were assessed at surgery, at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The success and survival rates of the implants were also evaluated. Within the 24-month follow-up, only one implant failed (2.0%). Other biological or technical complications were not observed. The mean insertion torque was 34±5.3 Ncm. Bone level changes of 0.35±0.23mm were found between surgery and 12 months after surgery, and 0.03±0.05 mm between 12 months and 24 months after surgery. The overall change from surgery to 24 months after implant placement was 0.38±0.24 mm. Most of the bone loss occurred between surgery and 3 months (0.28±0.19mm; p<0.001), thereafter the loss was minimal and statistically non-significant. BLT implants yielded a high survival and success rate with minimal bone level changes. Within the limitations of this study, bone level tapered implants presented high survival and success rates without mechanical or biological complications after loading and minimal marginal bone. These observations indicate that tapered implants seem to be suitable for different clinical scenarios.

Alveolar ridge preservation in defect sockets in the maxillary aesthetic zone followed by single-tooth bone level tapered implants with immediate provisionalization: a 1-year prospective case series

“…However, baseline measurements were made immediately after implant placement, in contrast to our baseline measurement, which was 4 months after implant placement. Pariente et al [18] described that most bone loss occurs in the 3 months after implant surgery. Here, the mean bone loss during the first year after implant placement was 0.35 ± 0.23 mm, of which 0.28 ± 0.19 mm in the first 3 months.…”

“…The implant stability quotient was measured in neither the study of Levine et al [17] nor the study of Pariente et al [18]. Moroi et al [28] studied implant stability of tapered implants versus cylindrical implants, but these implants were from a different brand and mostly placed in the posterior region.…”

“…It has a tapered body, converging from the cervical part to the apex, and is further equipped with the established characteristics of previous Straumann designs such as a SLActive surface [14] and platform switch with conical implant/abutment connection [15]. To the best of our knowledge, only a few studies have reported the use of this newly designed implant system in compromised bone, and rarely with measurement of primary implant stability [16][17][18]. A full-scale assessment (primary stability, marginal bone level change, change in clinical peri-implant parameters, aesthetic outcome, patient-reported outcomes) on the performance of the Straumann BLT implant system with immediate provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic area has not yet been reported.…”

Comparison of the Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode of Contemporary Restorative Materials to Overcome the Offset of Mandibular Implant-Supported, Cement-Retained Crowns

“…The success rates of dental implants in partially edentulous patients range between 96.6% and 98.5% [4][5][6]. Single implant-retained restorations are known to have several advantages, both aesthetically and functionally [7].…”

Bone Level Tapered Implants in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A 1-Year Prospective Case Series in Healed Sites

“…Currently, limited studies have been published on this bone level tapered implant system. [16][17][18] Of these, only one describes placement specifically in the anterior maxilla. However, the study has a follow-up of only 6 months and does not describe implant stability, esthetics, or patient-reported outcomes.…”