Search

Objectives: To test whether soft tissue volume augmentation using a collagen matrix (VCMX) leads to noninferior results in terms of gain of mucosal thickness at single implant sites, compared to connective tissue grafts (SCTG). Methods: The study was designed as a multi‐center randomized controlled clinical trial. Subjects in need of soft tissue volume augmentation at single tooth implant sites were consecutively recruited at nine centers. The deficient mucosal thickness at the implant sites (one per patient) was augmented by applying either a VCMX or a SCTG. Patients were examined at 120 days (abutment connection = primary endpoint), 180 days (final restoration), and 360 days (1‐year after insertion of the final restoration). Outcome measures included: transmucosal probing of the mucosal thickness (crestal = primary outcome), profilometric measurements of the tissue volume, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs).ResultsOut of the 88 patients, 79 attended the one‐year follow‐up. The median increase of the crestal mucosal thickness between pre‐augmentation and 120 days was 0.3 ± 2.1 mm in the VCMX group and 0.8 ± 1.6 mm in the SCTG group (p = .455). Non‐inferiority of the VCMX compared to the SCTG was not observed. The respective numbers at the buccal aspect amounted to 0.9 ± 2.0 mm (VCMX) and 1.1 ± 1.4 mm (SCTG; p = .431). PROMs including pain perception favored the VCMX group. Conclusion: It remains inconclusive whether soft tissue augmentation using a VCMX is noninferior to SCTG in terms of crestal mucosal thickening at single implant sites. However, the use of collagen matrices favors PROMs especially pain perception, while achieving similar buccal volume gains along with comparable clinical and aesthetic parameters to SCTG.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare changes in soft and hard tissue and the histologic composition following early implant placement in sites with alveolar ridge preservation or spontaneous healing (SH), as well as implant performance up to 1 year after crown insertion. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with either intact buccal bone plates or dehiscence of up to 50% following single-tooth extraction of incisors, canines, or premolars were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to undergo one of three procedures: deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered by a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), DBBM-C alone, or SH. At 8 weeks, implant placement was carried out, and cone-beam computed tomography scans and impressions were obtained for profilometric analysis. Patients were followed up after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure. RESULTS: Within the first 8 weeks following tooth extraction, the median height of the buccal soft tissue contour changed by -2.11 mm for the DBBM-C/CM group, -1.62 mm for the DBBM-C group, and -1.93 mm for the SH group. The corresponding height of the buccal mineralized tissue changed by -0.27 mm for the DBBM-C/CM group, -2.73 mm for the DBBM-C group, and -1.48mm for the SH group. The median contour changes between crown insertion and 1 year were -0.19 mm in the DBBM-C/CM group, -0.09 mm in the DBBM-C group, and -0.29 mm in the SH group. CONCLUSIONS: Major vertical and horizontal ridge contour changes occurred, irrespective of the treatment modality, up to 8 weeks following tooth extraction. The DBBM-C/CM preserved more mineralized tissue throughout this period, despite a substantial reduction in the overall contour. All 3 protocols led to stable tissues for up to 1 year.

BACKGROUND Interventions to augment the mucosal thickness around dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health. However, there is a lack of clinical data on the long-term performance of soft tissue substitutes, such as volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), compared to autogenous grafts, such as subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess 5-year data on clinical and radiographic outcomes at implant sites previously augmented with VCMX or SCTG. METHODS Twenty patients were randomly assigned for soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (baseline; BL) and patients were reexamined up to 5 years (FU-5). Measurements included clinical data, marginal bone levels, mucosal thickness, and ridge contour changes. Nonparametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. RESULTS The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.3 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 1.0) in the VCMX group (P = 0.656) and 0.3 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 1.0) in the SCTG group (P = 0.188) between BL and FU-5 (intergroup P = 0.752), while the ridge contour decreased by a median of -0.3 mm (-0.9; -0.1) (P = 0.078) for VCMX and -0.3 mm (-0.4; -0.2) (P = 0.039) for SCTG (intergroup P = 0.817). Peri-implant health was maintained in both groups with stable clinical and radiographic outcomes and without significant differences between the treatments. CONCLUSION Despite the limited power and considerable dropout rate in the present study, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites with either VCMX or SCTG resulted in similar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at 5 years post loading.

PURPOSE To assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction with a three-implant-retained mandibular overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this randomized crossover clinical trial, 20 edentulous patients received a new set of conventional complete dentures (baseline). Subsequently, three implants were placed in the anterior mandible; two of these were placed in the canine regions bilaterally, and one was placed in the midline. After successful osseointegration, complete dentures were attached to the implants using resilient attachments. The overdenture was retained either by three implants (test group) or two implants (control group). The sequence of treatment was randomized such that each patient experienced both treatment options for 6 months each. OHRQoL was assessed at baseline and after 6 months of function for each treatment option using Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and visual analog scale scores. Statistical analyses were performed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS Conventional dentures resulted in significantly higher OHIP-14 and VAS scores (25.25 + 6.42; 8.55 + 1.73) compared to both the control group (11.15 + 5.39; 4 + 2) (P < .001) and the test group (6.25 + 4.02/2.06 + 1.48) (P < .001). Similarly, significantly higher mean OHIP-14 and VAS scores were noted for the control group compared to the test group (P < .001). CONCLUSION Overdentures retained by three implants resulted in better OHRQoL scores and higher patient satisfaction compared to overdentures retained by two implants and conventional complete dentures.

OBJECTIVES To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. CONCLUSIONS Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes.

Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the current systematic review was to answer the following PICO question: "In adult human subjects undergoing dental implant placement (P), is minimally invasive flapless computer-aided fully guided (either dynamic or static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP)) (I) superior to flapped conventional (free-handed implant placement (FHIP) or cast-based/drill partially guided implant placement (dPGIP)) surgery (C), in terms of efficacy, patient morbidity, long-term prognosis, and costs (O)?" Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PICO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, performed full-text analysis, extracted the data from the published reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. The study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses, which were based (wherever possible) on individual patient data (IPD). A total of 10 manuscripts reporting on five RCTs, involving a total of 124 participants and 449 implants, and comparing flapless sCAIP with flapped FHIP/cast-based partially guided implant placement (cPGIP), were included. There was no RCT analyzing flapless dynamic computer-aided implant placement (dCAIP) or flapped dPGIP. Intergroup meta-analyses indicated less depth deviation (difference in means (MD) = -0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.59 to 0.03; moderate certainty), angular deviation (MD = -3.88 degrees; 95% CI: -7.00 to -0.77; high certainty), coronal (MD = -0.6 mm; 95% CI: -1.21 to 0.01; low certainty) and apical (MD = -0.75 mm; 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.07; moderate certainty) three-dimensional bodily deviations, postoperative pa

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

CRUE-CSIC (Acuerdos Transformativos 2022), Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the current systematic review was to answer the following PICO question: “In adult human subjects undergoing dental implant placement (P), is minimally invasive flapless computer-aided fully guided (either dynamic or static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP)) (I) superior to flapped conventional (free-handed implant placement (FHIP) or cast-based/drill partially guided implant placement (dPGIP)) surgery (C), in terms of efficacy, patient morbidity, long-term prognosis, and costs (O)?” Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PICO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, performed full-text analysis, extracted the data from the published reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. The study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses, which were based (wherever possible) on individual patient data (IPD). A total of 10 manuscripts reporting on five RCTs, involving a total of 124 participants and 449 implants, and comparing flapless sCAIP with flapped FHIP/cast-based partially guided implant placement (cPGIP), were included. There was no RCT analyzing flapless dynamic computer-aided implant placement (dCAIP) or flapped dPGIP. Intergroup meta-analyses indicated less depth deviation (difference in means (MD) = −0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.59 to 0.03; moderate certainty), angular deviation (MD = −3.88 degrees; 95% CI: −7.00 to −0.77; high certainty), coronal (MD = −0.6 mm; 95% CI: −1.21 to 0.01; low certainty) and apical (MD = −0.75 mm; 95% CI: −1.43 to −0.07; moderate certainty) three-dimensional bodily deviations, postoperative pa, Depto. de Especialidades Clínicas Odontológicas, Fac. de Odontología, TRUE, pub

Objectives To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant–abutment junctions at 8 years. Materials and methods Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL), one (T1), three (T3), five (T5), and eight years (T8). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. Results Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: −0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: −0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). Conclusions Dental implants with non-matching implant–abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible.

The management and prevention of soft tissue complications is of key importance in modern implant dentistry and influences biologic and esthetic outcomes. The assessment of the soft tissue conditions from a quantitative and qualitative perspective should, therefore, be part of the overall treatment plan. Such an assessment dictates a potential indication as well as an ideal time point for additional soft tissue management. A proper risk assessment and management of the soft tissues at the planned implant site are of key importance prior to any implant-related surgery. Cases with peri-implant soft tissue complications generally involve: (a) a lack of attached and keratinized mucosa; (b) insufficient volume; (c) development of mucosal dehiscences; or (d) a combination of (a), (b), and (c). In case of soft tissue deficiencies, these should be addressed as early as possible to increase the predictability of the surgical interventions. This article reviews the main causes for peri-implant soft tissue complications and presents different therapeutic options for the management of various clinical scenarios.

PURPOSE This study was conducted to assess the effect of hard and/or soft tissue grafting on immediate implants in a preclinical model. METHODS In 5 mongrel dogs, the distal roots of P2 and P3 were extracted from the maxilla (4 sites in each animal), and immediate implant placement was performed. Each site was randomly assigned to 1 of the following 4 groups: i) gap filling with guided bone regeneration (the GBR group), ii) subepithelial connective tissue grafting (the SCTG group), iii) GBR and SCTG (the GBR/SCTG group), and iv) no further treatment (control). Non-submerged healing was provided for 4 months. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS Peri-implant tissue height and thickness favored the SCTG group (height of peri-implant mucosa: 1.14 mm; tissue thickness at the implant shoulder and ±1 mm from the shoulder: 1.14 mm, 0.78 mm, and 1.57 mm, respectively; median value) over the other groups. Bone grafting was not effective at the level of the implant shoulder and on the coronal level of the shoulder. In addition, simultaneous soft and hard tissue augmentation (the GBR/SCTG group) led to a less favorable tissue contour compared to GBR or SCTG alone (height of peri-implant mucosa: 3.06 mm; thickness of peri-implant mucosa at the implant shoulder and ±1 mm from the shoulder: 0.72 mm, 0.3 mm, and 1.09 mm, respectively). CONCLUSION SCTG tended to have positive effects on the thickness and height of the peri-implant mucosa in immediate implant placement. However, simultaneous soft and hard tissue augmentation might not allow a satisfactory tissue contour in cases where the relationship between implant position and neighboring bone housing is unfavorable.

AIM To assess the frequency and quantity of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth after at least 10 years of follow-up (FU). METHODS Thirty-nine patients (median age 57.3 years) with 80 implants were re-examined at least 10 years after insertion of final restorations (single crowns or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)). Baseline (insertion of the restorations) and FU examinations encompassed the following: Stone casts were scanned and superimposed for metric assessment of tooth movements, radiographs, and clinical measurements. Outcome measures at implant sites were as follows: the extent of tooth movement and the frequency of interproximal contact loss [ICL], peri-implant marginal bone levels [MBLs], and clinical measurements (plaque control record [PCR], Bleeding on Probing [BOP], and probing depth [PD]). Data were analyzed statistically with generalized regression modeling with robust standard errors to account for within-patient clustering at 5%. RESULTS Interproximal contact loss for at least one contact point after 10 years was observed in 50% of all implants (with open interproximal spaces up to 1.64 mm). Mesial contact points were significantly more prone to ICL than distal ones (relative risk [RR] = 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-2.99; p = .03). The type of restoration had a significant effect on ICL, with FDPs of 2 implants being significantly more prone to mesial ICL than single crowns (RR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.02-2.25; p = .04). ICL was also associated with a significant increase in PD (+0.46 mm (95% CI = 0.04-0.88 mm; p = .03)) compared to implant sites without ICL. BOP, MBLs, and PCR were not significantly influenced by ICL. CONCLUSION Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.

The objective of this study was to clinically and radiologically evaluate the performance of a short (8 mm), 1-piece, zirconia implant after an observation period of 1 year in function. A total of 47 patients with 1 missing tooth in the position of a premolar or molar were recruited. Short (8 mm), 1-piece, zirconia implants were placed and loaded after a healing period of 2 to 4 months with monolithic crowns made of 3 different materials. Implants were followed up for one year and clinically and radiologically assessed. A total of 46 implants were placed. One was excluded since no primary stability was achieved at implant placement. At the 1-year follow-up, mean marginal bone loss 1 year after loading was 0.05 ± 0.47 mm. None of the implants showed marginal bone loss greater than 1 mm or clinical signs of peri-implantitis. A total of 2 implants were lost during the healing phase and another after loading, resulting in a survival rate of 93% after 1 year. All lost implants showed a sudden increased mobility with no previous signs of marginal bone loss or peri-implant infection. The short, 8 mm, zirconia implants showed stable marginal bone levels over the short observation period of 1 year. Although they revealed slightly lower survival rates, they can be suggested for the use in sites with reduced vertical bone. Scientific data are very limited, and long-term data are not yet available, and therefore, they are needed.

OBJECTIVES To assess long-term outcomes of implants placed in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR) with or without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). MATERIALS AND METHODS Eleven patients with at least two lateral bone defects (split-mouth design) received a total of 34 implants. The defects were treated with a xenogenic bone substitute with (test) or without (control) rhBMP-2 and covered with a collagen membrane. Eight patients could be reexamined after at least 17 years. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to assess differences between test and control groups. RESULTS The implant survival rate was 100% for all test and control sites. Mean marginal bone levels were 2.51 mm (SD ±1.64) (mesial test), 1.83 mm (SD ±0.93) (mesial control) (p = .055), 2.36 mm (SD ±1.70) (distal test), and 2.13 mm (SD ±0.84) (distal control) (p = 1.000). Compared with the mean values at baseline, a mean bone loss of 1.16 mm (SD ±1.60) (test) and 0.70 mm (SD ±1.02) (control) was found. The mean buccal bone gain after 17 years was 5.38 mm (test) and 3.14 mm (control) based on the comparison between the measurements at the cone beam CT after 17 years and the data from the intraoperative measurements at baseline. Further, mean values for (i) bone thickness ranged from 1.36 to 3.09 mm (test) and 1.18 to 3.39 mm (control) and for (ii) mucosal thickness of 1.24 mm (test) and 1.26 mm (control). CONCLUSION Implants placed in conjunction with GBR applying a xenogenic bone substitute and a collagen membrane with and without the addition of rhBMP-2 demonstrate excellent clinical and radiographic results after at least 17 years.

OBJECTIVES To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.

AIM To test whether the emergence profile (CONVEX or CONCAVE) of implant-supported crowns influences the mucosal margin stability up to 12 months after insertion of the final restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-seven patients with a single implant in the anterior region were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) CONVEX (n = 15), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a convex profile; (2) CONCAVE (n = 16), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a concave profile; (3) CONTROL (n = 16), no provisional (healing abutment only) and an implant-supported crown. All patients were recalled at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The stability of mucosal margin along with clinical, aesthetic, and profilometric outcomes as well as time and costs were evaluated. To predict the presence of recession, multivariable logistic regressions were performed and linear models using generalized estimation equations were conducted for the different outcomes. RESULTS Forty-four patients were available at 12 months post-loading. The frequency of mucosal recession amounted to 64.3% in group CONVEX, 14.3% in group CONCAVE, and 31.4% in group CONTROL. Regression models revealed that a CONVEX profile was significantly associated with the presence of recessions (odds ratio: 12.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.82-88.48, p = .01) compared with the CONCAVE profile. Pink aesthetic scores amounted to 5.9 in group CONVEX, 6.2 in group CONCAVE, and 5.4 in group CONTROL, with no significant differences between the groups (p = .735). Groups CONVEX and CONCAVE increased the appointments and costs compared with the CONTROL group. CONCLUSIONS The use of implant-supported provisionals with a CONCAVE emergence profile results in a greater stability of the mucosal margin compared with a CONVEX profile up to 12 months of loading. This is accompanied, however, by increased time and costs compared with the absence of a provisional and may not necessarily enhance the ae

AIM: To assess radiographic, restorative, clinical and technical outcomes as well as patient satisfaction of directly veneered zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases over 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a single missing tooth in the aesthetic zone were recruited. All patients received a two-piece implant with a screw-retained veneered zirconia restoration cemented extraorally on a titanium base abutment. Marginal bone levels (MBL), marginal bone changes, technical complications, patient satisfaction and clinical parameters including probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index were assessed at crown delivery (baseline), at 1 year (FU-1) and 5 years (FU-5) of follow-up. To investigate the relationship between restorative angle and MBL as well as marginal bone changes (bone loss/bone gain), correlation tests and linear regression models were carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were available for re-examination at 5 years. The mean MBL amounted to 0.54 ± 0.39 mm at baseline, and to 0.24 ± 0.35 at FU-5 (=bone gain) (p < .001). At FU-1, a positive correlation (r = .5) between the mesial restorative angle and mesial MBL was found (p = .012). Marginal bone changes between baseline and FU-1 at mesial sites were also positively correlated with the mesial restorative angle (r = .5; p = .037). Linear and logistic regression models confirmed that mesial marginal bone loss was significantly associated with the mesial restorative angle at FU-1 (p < .05). At 5 years, these significant associations at mesial sites disappeared (p > .05). At distal sites, no correlations or associations between the restorative angle and MBL or marginal bone changes were found regardless of the time point. During the 5-year follow-up, 5 technical complications occurred, mainly within the first year and mostly chippings. All patients were entirely satisfied with their implant-supported restoration at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation

OBJECTIVES To compare cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based restorations in terms of clinical, radiographic, and technical outcomes 5 years after insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-four patients with single-tooth implants were randomly restored with either a cemented lithium disilicate crown on a one-piece customized zirconia abutment (CEM, 17 patients) or a screw-retained crown based on a directly veneered one-piece customized zirconia abutment (SCREW, 16 patients). All patients were recalled for a baseline examination (7-10 days after crown insertion) and then annually up to 5 years. The following outcomes were assessed: marginal bone level (changes), technical, and clinical (bleeding on probing, plaque control record, probing depth, and keratinized tissue) parameters. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess differences between the two groups. RESULTS At 5 years, 26 patients (13 in each group) were re-examined. The survival rates on the implant and restorative levels were 100% and 82.4% (equally for both groups), respectively. At 5 years, the median marginal bone level was located at -0.15 mm (IQR: -0.89 mm; 0.27 mm) (CEM) and -0.26 mm (IQR: -0.38 mm; 0.01 mm) (SCREW) below the implant shoulder (intergroup p = .9598). The median changes between baseline and the 5-year follow-up amounted to -0.23 mm (CEM; intragroup p = .0002) and -0.15 mm (SCREW; intragroup p = .1465) (intergroup p = .1690). The overall technical complication rate at 5 years was 15.4% (CEM) and 15.4% (SCREW) (intergroup p = 1.00). Clinical parameters remained stable over time (baseline to 5 years). CONCLUSIONS At 5 years, screw-retained and cemented restorations rendered largely the same clinical, technical, and radiographic outcomes. Technical complications were frequent in both groups.