Single implants with different neck designs in the aesthetic zone: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract

For anterior tooth replacements, implants with a scalloped neck showed more marginal bone loss and less favourable clinical outcome compared with implants with a 1.5 mm smooth neck or implants with a rough neck.

Scalloped Implant-Abutment Connection Compared to Conventional Flat Implant-Abutment Connection: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…One study was excluded [22] because the same patient sample with a 5-year observation period was reported in another included publication [21]. Another study was excluded [23], because identical patient sample and outcome measures were reported in another publication [19]. …”

Anterior single implants with different neck designs: 5 Year results of a randomized clinical trial

“…This article presents the 5‐year follow‐up data after definitive crown placement. One‐year results of this trial have been described before . The design of this study is briefly summarized below, for details see den Hartog et al…”

“…The surgeon that inserted the implants was informed about the allocation on the day of surgery. For the sample size calculation, we refer to our earlier publication …”

“…Mid‐facial mucosal and papilla levels of the implant were measured at T cp, T 1y , and T 5y. The intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the radiographic and photographic examination was tested earlier and was reported as being acceptable . The esthetic outcome at T 5y was assessed by means of the Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), making use of the digital photographs.…”

Prospective, Multicenter Evaluation of Trabecular Metal‐Enhanced Titanium Dental Implants Placed in Routine Dental Practices: 1‐Year Interim Report From the Development Period (2010 to 2011)

“…Extending cervical microtexture to the top of the implant in the canine model has also been reported to reduce the amount of peri‐implant crestal bone loss without adversely affecting soft tissue health; however, concern about the possibility of increased bacterial attachment to microtextured implant surfaces as compared with machined (turned) surfaces exposed to the gingival crevice in humans has been expressed in the dental literature . After 6 months of plaque accumulation in dogs, the roughened surfaces of acid‐etched implants, which have been previously reported to be slightly rougher (Ra = 803 ± 257 nm) than the present microtextured surface (Ra 756 ± 73 nm), failed to influence any greater plaque formation or establishment of inflammatory cell lesions in the peri‐implant mucosa than control implants with machined surfaces .…”