Papillary fill response in single-tooth implants using abutments of different geometry

A Comparative Study Between Hybrid Abutments and Standard Abutments in Implant-Supported Prosthesis: A Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Background Implant-supported prostheses are widely used to replace extracted teeth. Therefore, studies on abutments' designs, shapes, and benefits had increased in recent years, as the design of the standard abutment still poses many problems in periodontal and cosmetic aspects. So, could the hybrid abutment solve some of these problems? Aim We aim to conduct a clinical comparison between standard and hybrid abutments in terms of the state of peri-implant gingival tissues and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction after the cementation of the final prostheses. Material and methods The study sample consisted of 10 patients, with 20 dental implants. Each patient received two implants as a standard abutment was placed over one implant and a hybrid abutment was placed over the other. Clinical assessment of the peri-implant gingival tissue and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction was performed (immediately, three months, six months, and one year) after the cementation of the final prostheses. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect statistically significant differences between groups. Results The percentage of the thick gingival biotype was 80%, and the percentage of the thin gingival biotype was 20% in each group during the follow-up periods. In addition, all papilla fill the whole interdental space in all samples of the two groups after six months and one year. Finally, there were no significant differences in patients' aesthetic satisfaction between groups during one year of follow-up (P = 0.631), and there were no significant differences in patients' functional satisfaction between groups during one year of follow-up (P = 0.684). Conclusion Within the limitations of the current work, there are no differences between standard and hybrid abutments in terms of affecting the peri-implant gingival tissue and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction.

Esthetic, mechanical, and biological outcomes of various implant abutments for single-tooth replacement in the anterior region: a systematic review of the literature

Background

The choice of the appropriate implant abutment is a critical step for a successful outcome. Titanium abutments have demonstrated high survival rates, due to their excellent biocompatibility and high mechanical strength, although they often result in a grayish discoloration of the peri-implant mucosa. This esthetic concern culminated in the introduction of ceramic abutments. The aim of this review was to assess the esthetic, mechanical, and biological outcomes as well as the survival of the different types of abutments used for single-implant restorations in the anterior area.

Material and methods

An electronic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases using the appropriate Mesh terms and predetermined eligibility criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the ROB 2 tool. The last search was conducted on 18th of March 2020.

Results

From the 2074 records initially identified, 23 randomized controlled trials (32 publications) were included for qualitative analysis. Data were classified based on study information, specific characteristics of the intervention and comparator, and information related to the outcome measures. Seven studies exhibited an overall low risk of bias, while twelve studies raised some concerns.

Conclusions

The rate of abutment failure was low and was associated with the ceramic abutments, especially those with internal connection. Limited correlation was noted between soft tissue thickness and color difference. Titanium abutments caused significantly more discoloration to the soft tissues than ceramic abutments, while hueing (gold or pink) slightly improved their color performance. Zirconia allowed a better color match than titanium or gold abutments, still discolored slightly the soft tissues. The submucosally modified zirconia abutments exhibited encouraging results. No significant difference was reported between materials or different types of retention on recession, papillary fill, and biological outcomes.

The esthetic biological contour concept for implant restoration emergence profile design

OBJECTIVE

Emergence profile design is important for stable peri-implant tissues and esthetically pleasing results with dental implant restorations, influenced by factors, such as, implant position and surrounding soft tissues. Different aspects of the emergence profile have been described, but detailed explanations of the different zones and corresponding designs are missing. This article describes the esthetic biological contour concept (EBC), differentiating important areas of the emergence profile and recommending particular designs for those zones.

OVERVIEW

The EBC concept considers specific parameters for proper design of the emergence profile of implant-supported restorations. Understanding the different zones of the emergence profile and their relation to factors like implant position, implant design, and soft tissue thickness is key. The suggested guidelines are geared toward providing more stable and esthetic results when restoring dental implants in the esthetic zone.

CONCLUSIONS

Each of the zones described in the EBC concept have a specific function in the design of the emergence profile. Understanding the importance and specific design features of the EBC zones facilitates esthetic and biologically sound treatment outcomes with interim and definitive implant restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Proper emergence profile design supports esthetic outcomes and provides favorable biological response to implant-supported restorations.

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

BACKGROUND

The design of the implant neck might be significant for preservation of marginal bone.

PURPOSE

To compare the 5-year radiographic and clinical outcome of single anterior implants provided with a smooth neck, a rough neck or a scalloped rough neck.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

93 Patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were included. At random, patients received an implant with a 1.5 mm smooth neck ("smooth group"), a rough neck with grooves ("rough group") or a scalloped rough neck with grooves ("scalloped group"). Implants were installed in healed sites. Follow-up visits were conducted after final crown delivery and 1 year and 5 years later.

RESULTS

Scalloped implants showed significantly more initial marginal bone resorption. The total amount of bone loss was 1.26 ± 0.90 mm in the smooth group, 1.20 ± 1.1 mm in the rough group and 2.28 ± 0.97 mm in the scalloped group (P < .05). Survival rates were 96.2% for the smooth and scalloped group and 100% for the rough group. Scalloped implants showed deeper pocket depths, more bleeding and more technical complications. There were no differences in esthetic outcome nor in patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

For anterior single tooth replacements, scalloped implants show less favorable radiographic and clinical outcome compared to regular implants with a smooth neck or rough neck.

Stock Versus CAD/CAM Customized Zirconia Implant Abutments - Clinical and Patient-Based Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background

Single‐tooth replacement often requires a prefabricated dental implant and a customized crown. The benefits of individualization of the abutment remain unclear.

Purpose

This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to study potential benefits of individualization of zirconia implant abutments with respect to preservation of marginal bone level and several clinical and patient‐based outcome measures.

Material and Methods

Fifty participants with a missing premolar were included and randomly assigned to standard (ZirDesign, DentsplySirona Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) or computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized (Atlantis, DentsplySirona Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) zirconia abutment therapy. Peri‐implant bone level (primary outcome), Plaque‐index, calculus formation, bleeding on probing, gingiva index, probing pocket depth, recession, appearance of soft tissues and patients' contentment were assessed shortly after placement and one year later.

Results

No implants were lost and no complications related to the abutments were observed. Statistically significant differences between stock and CAD/CAM customized zirconia abutments could not be demonstrated for any of the operationalized variables.

Conclusion

The use of a CAD/CAM customized zirconia abutment in single tooth replacement of a premolar is not associated with an improvement in clinical performance or patients' contentment when compared to the use of a stock zirconia abutment.