A prospective multicenter evaluation of immediately functionalized tapered conical connection implants for single restorations in maxillary anterior and premolar sites: 3-year results

Changes of dental anxiety, aesthetic perception and oral health-related quality of life related to influencing factors of patients' demographics after anterior implant treatment: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence has revealed the effects of anterior implant procedures on dental anxiety (DA), aesthetic perception and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). However, few reported the changes and influencing factors of the above outcomes before and after anterior implant treatment. This study was to evaluate the changes of DA, aesthetic perception and OHRQoL related to influencing factors of patients' demographics after anterior implant treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were prospectively recruited before surgery. The subjects completed the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS), the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OSE) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14), before implant surgery and after definitive prosthesis placement. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test by Bonferroni correction were applied for the data analysis and the influencing factors evaluation (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Overall, 39 patients (mean age of 44.9 ± 12.0) completed the three scales. After anterior implant treatment, MDAS was not significantly changed (p > 0.05). The overall OSE (p < 0.001) and OHIP-14 (p < 0.05) were significantly improved. Females showed more improvement of overall OHIP score than males after anterior implant treatment (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior implant procedures did not change the level of patient's DA, while aesthetic perception and OHRQoL were enhanced. Only gender difference of overall OHIP change was found in our study. Thus, more related influencing factors with larger sample and long-term effective follow-up are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05424458. Registered 13 June 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05424458 .

Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants for single-tooth restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone: a 5-year prospective single-cohort multicenter analysis

Objectives

This open, single-cohort, multicenter, prospective study investigated the efficacy of immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implant for single-tooth restorations in the anterior and premolar regions of the maxilla after 5 years of function.

Materials and methods

All implants were placed in healed sites and immediately provisionalized. MBLs, soft-tissue parameters, and oral-health impact profile (OHIP) were evaluated at implant insertion, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used for statistical and implant survival/success analyses, respectively.

Results

Seventy-seven patients (81 implants) completed the 5-year follow-up. The 5-year cumulative survival and success rates were 97.8%, and the mean MBL change from implant insertion to 5 years was − 0.80 ± 1.13 mm. Optimal papilla index scores were observed at 90.1% of sites at 5 years compared with 32.8% of sites at insertion. Pink esthetic score, modified bleeding and plaque indices, and OHIP showed statistically significant improvement at the 5-year follow-up.

Conclusions

Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants promote marginal bone stability and excellent esthetic outcomes after 5 years of function.

Clinical relevance

This treatment is a viable option for patients requiring immediately provisionalized single-tooth restorations in the esthetic zone and shows favorable long-term clinical outcomes, including marginal bone stability and excellent esthetics.

The effect of implant-abutment connections on peri-implant bone levels around single implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

Objective

To systematically review literature about the effect of different implant‐abutment interface designs on peri‐implant bone level changes, implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa changes around single implants in the anterior maxilla. Reviewing three connection configurations: Platform switched conical (PS‐conical); Platform switched parallel (PS‐parallel); Platform matched parallel (PM‐parallel).

Methods

A detailed search was carried out in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Open Gray and African journals Online (until December 1, 2020) and was restricted to clinical prospective studies of at least 1 year and with at least 10 human participants. A meta regression analysis was carried out primarily on the pooled peri‐implant bone level changes followed by implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa level change. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 and ROBINS‐I. The manuscript complied with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: 225092).

Results

A total of 5513 hits gave 44 eligible articles for the analyses. Bone level change did not differ significantly between the two platform switched connections; their bone loss scores were significantly lower than PM‐connection. The PS‐conical connections have significantly lower implant losses than the PM connection. Mid‐buccal mucosa level change was comparable between the three connection configurations. Moderate to high risk of bias was detected in the included studies.

Conclusions

The performance of PS‐conical and PS‐parallel connection configurations both favored bone loss scores compared to the PM‐parallel connection configuration. All three demonstrated mid‐buccal mucosa changes that were small and did not differ significantly amongst the groups.

Does immediate loading of a single implant in the healed anterior maxillary ridge improve the aesthetic outcome compared to conventional loading?

Background

Immediate loading is an attractive option for avoiding secondary surgery. However, it is unclear whether it provides a better aesthetic outcome compared to conventional loading with implants placed in healed ridges.

Aims

To compare the aesthetic outcomes of immediately and conventionally loaded single implants in healed anterior maxillary ridges.

Methodology

A systematic review using PICO was conducted. EMBASE, MEDLINE and DoSS databases were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for Randomised Controlled Trials and the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool for other study designs were used for quality appraisal. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Results

A total of 622 articles were identified. After screening, a total of five papers were included. Results indicated no statistically significant difference in pink or white aesthetic scores between the immediate and conventional loading groups at 1- and 5-year review and the Papilla Index at the 1-year review.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this review, immediate loading of single implants provides a comparable aesthetic outcome to conventional loading in healed ridges of the anterior maxillary.