Treatment outcome of two adjacent implant crowns with different implant platform designs in the aesthetic zone: a 1-year randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Tymstra N, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Den Hartog L, Stellingsma K, Meijer HJA: Treatment outcome of two adjacent implant crowns with different implant platform designs in the aesthetic zone: a 1‐year randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38: 74–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01638.x Abstract Aim: To evaluate the peri‐implant tissues in patients with two adjacent implant crowns in the aesthetic zone, treated with either two adjacent implants with a scalloped platform or with a flat platform. Material and methods: Forty patients were randomly allocated to: (1) a “scalloped implant group”: 20 patients treated with two adjacent implants with a scalloped platform, and (2) a “flat implant group”: 20 patients treated with two adjacent implants with a flat platform. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed during a 1‐year follow‐up period to assess hard and soft tissue changes. Results: The scalloped implant group showed significantly more marginal bone loss (scalloped: 2.7±1.4 mm, flat: 0.9±0.8 mm) and more inter‐implant bone crest loss (scalloped: 1.8±1.4, flat: 1.0±0.9 mm) than the flat implant group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the papilla index and patients' satisfaction. Conclusion: After 1 year of function, there was more bone loss around scalloped implants than around flat implants. With regard to the presence of papilla, there were no differences between the groups. With both applied implant designs, it is difficult to establish a predictable and harmonious aesthetic result, especially regarding the peri‐implant mucosa. Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetic outcome of the adjacent implants irrespective of the treatment concept applied.

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

“…In this study, papilla health improved significantly from 30.8% acceptable scores at placement to 90.5% at the 1-year follow-up. This improvement was comparable to the papilla outcomes reported in previous studies with tapered implants [33, 34, 41]. Importantly, in this study, PES significantly improved, reaching a score of 9.8 at the 1-year follow-up (range 0–14).…”

A randomized trial on the aesthetic outcomes of implant‐supported restorations with zirconia or titanium abutments

“…A successful single tooth restoration in the anterior maxilla is not only dependent on survival but also on the aesthetic outcomes (Tymstra et al. ). This is relevant if we mainly consider the judgement of patients (Dierens et al.…”

“…, Tymstra et al. , Vilhjalmsson et al. ), although only a few have been validated in clinical trials (Meijer et al.…”

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

“…No article was included as the result of hand-searching. 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].…”