Long-Term Esthetic Outcome of Tissue-Level and Bone-Level Implants in the Anterior Maxilla

Siebert, Carola; Rieder, Dominik; Eggert, Jochen; Wichmann, Manfred; Heckmann, Siegfried M.

doi:10.11607/jomi.6419

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over time there has been a shift in the use of tissue‐level implants to bone‐level implants. Bone‐level implants can enable the practitioner to create a natural emergence profile with individually designed abutments, which is particularly useful in the aesthetic zone (Chappuis, Bornstein, Buser, Belser, ; Siebert, Rieder, Eggert, Wichmann, Heckmann, ). A satisfying treatment outcome should be durable and stay stable for many years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of bone‐level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5‐year prospective cohort study

Meijndert

Raghoebar

Santing

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, and satisfaction of patients treated with single implant restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region 5 years after final restoration. Material and methods:Sixty patients (29 male/31 female, mean age 37 years) with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla (39 central incisors/10 lateral incisors/5 cuspids/6 first premolars) received a bone-level implant with conical connection. In 29 patients, a bone augmentation procedure was necessary before implant placement (autogenous bone grafts mixed with spongiosa granules). All implants (12 with 3.3 mm diameter/ 48 with 4.1 mm diameter) were loaded after 3 months of submerged healing.The restoration consisted of an individually designed full-zirconia abutment veneered with porcelain. Follow-up with clinical and radiographic assessment was conducted until 60 months after the final restoration. Aesthetic outcome of the restoration was determined with the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). Patient satisfaction was assessed with a VAS scale and satisfaction questionnaire.Results: Fifty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100%, restoration survival 98%. Mean bone-level change was −0.13 ± 0.66 mm with a median (IQR) pocket probing depth of 2. 75 [2.25; 3.25]. The mean PES and WES scores were 6.6 ± 1.7 and 7.8 ± 1.5, respectively. Patient satisfaction was high (92.1 ± 7.8 on 100 mm VAS scale). There were no differences between patients with or without a bone augmentation procedure. Conclusion:Bone-level implants with a conical connection are a reliable treatment option in single-tooth replacements in the maxillary aesthetic zone. K E Y W O R D Saesthetic region, bone augmentation, dental implants, maxilla, single-tooth S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O NAdditional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: Meijndert CM, Raghoebar GM, Santing HJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Performance of bone-level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Impl Res.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of bone‐level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5‐year prospective cohort study

Meijndert

Raghoebar

Santing

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even though the strains induced by the soft tissue level implant are higher in both load scenarios, this type of implant has shown excellent conservation of the marginal bone in clinical studies and has been used even as the control for marginal bone loss in animal trials (Heitz-Mayfield et al 2013). In the clinical practice, both implants have also shown comparable long-term esthetic outcomes where the marginal bone level plays a critical role (Siebert et al 2018). This could suggest, that the higher strains induced by the soft tissue level implant are still within the physiological range to preserve the marginal cortical bone and avoid resorption.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Influence of dental implant designs on the strain at the peri-implant cortical bone: a finite element study

Londono

Ramos

Correa

et al. 2020

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Retrospective data suggest that one-part and two-part implants presented comparable treatment outcomes in terms of mesial and distal papilla heights over a mean follow-up period of 3.7 years and 9.5 years, respectively. 47 Regarding the design of the implantabutment junction, findings from a randomized clinical study demonstrated that implants with nonmatching implant-abutment interfaces (platform-switch design) experienced a gain in the papilla height during the 2-year follow-up period, whereas the interproximal papilla showed apical migration at the implants with matching implant-abutment connections (+0.18 mm and −0.88 mm, respectively; P ≤ 0.005). 48…”

Section: Implant Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry

Ramanauskaitė¹,

Sader

2022

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry have become a significant consideration for patients and practitioners. This review presents an appraisal on the current knowledge of the physiological peri‐implant soft‐tissue dimensions and factors that may compromise peri‐implant tissue esthetics. Factors such as papilla fill adjacent to the implant and midfacial mucosal height are critical parameters that determine the esthetic success of implant‐supported restorations. Papilla fill adjacent to a single dental implant appears to depend upon the clinical attachment level of the neighboring tooth. A horizontal inter‐implant distance of at least 3 mm is necessary to ensure optimal interproximal mucosal embrasure between two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. In cases where implants cannot be placed at least 3 mm apart, a single implant with a cantilever bridge should be considered. Buccolingual implant positioning plays a major role in midfacial mucosal height. Soft‐tissue volume grafting following immediate implant placement in the presence of a thin soft‐tissue phenotype or simultaneous to surgical peri‐implantitis therapy might help to overcome facial mucosa recession.

show abstract

Long-Term Esthetic Outcome of Tissue-Level and Bone-Level Implants in the Anterior Maxilla

Abstract: Within the limits of this study, it can be stated that both implant designs showed comparably satisfying esthetic results.

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Performance of bone‐level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5‐year prospective cohort study

Performance of bone‐level implants with conical connections in the anterior maxilla: A 5‐year prospective cohort study

Influence of dental implant designs on the strain at the peri-implant cortical bone: a finite element study

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About