Jan Cosyn

Immediate single‐tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: a 1‐year case cohort study on hard and soft tissue response

AIM The objective of the present study was to assess implant survival rate, hard and soft tissue response and aesthetic outcome 1 year after immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the pre-maxilla. All patients underwent the same strategy, that is mucoperiosteal flap elevation, immediate implant placement, insertion of a grafting material between the implant and the socket wall and the connection of a screw-retained provisional restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty consecutive patients were treated for single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone by means of immediate implant placement and provisionalization. Reasons for tooth loss included caries, periodontitis or trauma. At 6 months, provisional crowns were replaced by the permanent ones. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was completed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess implant survival and complications, hard and soft tissue parameters and patients aesthetic satisfaction. RESULTS One implant had failed at 1 month of follow-up, resulting in an implant survival rate of 97%. Radiographic examination yielded 0.98 mm mesial, respectively, 0.78 mm distal bone loss. Midfacial soft tissue recession and mesial/distal papilla shrinkage were 0.53, 0.41 and 0.31 mm, respectively. Patients aesthetic satisfaction was 93%. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results suggest that the proposed strategy can be considered to be a valuable treatment option in well-selected patients.

Immediate single‐tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: 3‐year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics

PURPOSE The objective of this prospective study was to assess the overall outcome of immediate single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla after a 3-year observation period. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty consecutively treated patients with a thick gingival biotype, ideal gingival level/contour and intact socket walls at the time of tooth extraction were treated for single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone by two experienced clinicians. Treatment included minimal mucoperiosteal flap elevation, immediate implant placement (NobelReplace TiUnite(®)), insertion of a grafting material between the implant and the socket wall and connection of a screw-retained provisional restoration. The latter was replaced by a cemented crown 6 months thereafter. Patients were clinically and radiographically re-examined after 3 years to assess implant survival, complications and hard and soft tissue conditions. The aesthetic outcome was objectively rated using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and White Esthetic Score (WES) by a blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment. RESULTS Twenty-five patients could be re-evaluated after 3 years. One early implant failure had occurred resulting in an implant survival rate of 96%. Radiographic examination yielded on average 1.13 mm mesial, respectively 0.86 mm distal bone loss. The clinical conditions showed fairly low peri-implant plaque (18%) and bleeding (24%) and mean probing depth was 3.17 mm. Mean mesial/distal papilla shrinkage and midfacial soft tissue recession in reference to the pre-operative status accounted for 0.05, 0.08 and 0.34 mm, respectively. Between the 1- and 3-year reassessment mesial papillae showed significant re-growth (0.36 mm; p=0.015). Advanced midfacial recession (>1 mm) was found in 2/25 (8%) cases. Five (21%) cases were aesthetic failures (PES<8 and/or WES<6) and 5/24 (21%) showed an (almost) perfect outcome (PES≥12 and WES≥9). The remainder (14/24 or 58%) demonstrated acceptable aesthetics. CONCLUSIONS The proposed strategy seems a valuable and predictable treatment option for well-selected patients in the mid-long term as shown by almost full papillary re-growth and a low risk for advanced midfacial recession.

Instant provisionalization of immediate single‐tooth implants is essential to optimize esthetic treatment outcome

OBJECTIVE The immediate single-tooth implant has become a viable treatment option. However, the impact of the restorative procedure on esthetics is currently unclear. The goal of this study was to compare the soft tissue outline at immediate implants following two restorative protocols: immediate connection of a temporary crown or submerged healing during which a removable partial denture is used. MATERIAL AND METHODS A 1-year single-blind randomized clinical study was performed in 49 patients. Twenty-four patients were assigned to the immediate restoration group and 25 to the delayed restoration group. Clinical and radiographic evaluations of soft and hard tissues were carried out after 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS Implant survival, bone remodeling, probing depth and bleeding tendency were not influenced by the restorative protocol. Delayed restoration resulted in initial papilla loss taking up to 1 year to attain comparable height as for immediate restoration. Midfacial recession was systematically 2.5-3 times higher following delayed restoration pointing to a 0.75 mm additional loss in comparison with immediate restoration after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS If the primary implant stability permits it, immediate single-tooth implants should be instantly provisionalized in the interest of optimal midfacial esthetics.

Immediate and conventional single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: 1‐year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics

AIM The main objective of this clinical study was to document midfacial soft tissue dynamics following single immediate implant treatment (IIT) and conventional implant treatment (CIT) in the anterior maxilla when performed by experienced clinicians in well-selected patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Appropriate bone volume and ideal soft tissue levels were considered requirements for implant therapy. Additional prerequisites for IIT were intact socket walls and a thick gingival biotype. CIT included standard flap elevation whereas IIT was either performed with a flap or flapless procedure. All implants were provisionally restored using cemented acrylic crowns. Bone levels, papillae and midfacial soft tissue levels were monitored at regular intervals. The aesthetic outcome was assessed after 1 year using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and white aesthetic score (WES). RESULTS Sixteen patients (10 men, six women; mean age 45) received an immediate implant and 23 patients (12 men, 11 women; mean age 40) had conventional implant surgery. One immediate implant failed in the early healing phase. The mean bone level from the implant-abutment interface was 0.85mm for IIT and 0.65mm for CIT after 1 year (p=0.144). Mesial papillae remained stable over time. Minute loss of distal papillae occurred following IIT (-0.38mm) and a tendency for re-growth was found following CIT (0.60mm). Midfacial soft tissues remained stable over time following IIT with only 7% showing advanced recession (>1mm). Flapless surgery induced less midfacial recession than flap surgery (p=0.023). Significant midfacial recession occurred following CIT (-1mm). Overall, 24% were aesthetic failures (PES<8 and/or WES<6) and 8% showed an (almost) perfect outcome (PES12 and WES9). The remainder (68%) demonstrated acceptable aesthetics. CONCLUSIONS Immediate implants demonstrated fairly stable midfacial soft tissue levels with only a minority of cases showing advanced recession. Irrespective of the timing of implant placement, aesthetic failures seem to be rather common and only a strict minority may show perfection.

A systematic review on the frequency of advanced recession following single immediate implant treatment.

PURPOSE It has been stated that midfacial recession is common following immediate implant treatment (IIT). The objective of this systematic review was to assess the frequency of advanced recession (>1 mm) following single IIT. MATERIAL AND METHODS An electronic search in Pubmed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register database was performed using a search algorithm. Reference lists of relevant articles were also scrutinized to identify prospective studies on ≥10 implants installed in patients with an intact buccal bone wall and followed for ≥12 months. Study eligibility and quality were independently assessed by two investigators. Primary outcome variables were advanced inter-proximal and midfacial recession defined as soft tissue loss surpassing 1 mm between the pre- or postoperative status and the final re-assessment. RESULTS Thirteen of 171 papers were selected. Inter-examiner agreement on eligibility (κ = 0.879; p < 0.001) and quality (κ = 0.788; p < 0.001) was high. Advanced inter-proximal recession was described in 0-27% of the cases. However, these data were only based on two studies. Mean inter-proximal recession was frequently reported (11/13) and was <1 mm in all studies suggesting limited risk for advanced inter-proximal recession. Advanced midfacial recession was described in 0-64% of the cases. Again, few papers provided such information (4/13). Only one of these studies demonstrated high risk for advanced midfacial recession (>10%). This could be attributed to the fact that implants had not been restored with an immediate implant crown, which seems of pivotal importance given the results of a randomized controlled trial reporting on the preserving effect of immediate provisionalization on midfacial mucosa level. There is limited evidence to support an increased risk for midfacial recession following flap surgery and in patients with a thin-scalloped gingival biotype. The impact of implant-specific parameters on inter-proximal and midfacial soft tissue level seems conflicting. CONCLUSIONS Soft tissue recession may be expected following IIT and multiple factors seem to contribute to the phenomenon. Taking into account the paucity of papers, patients with an intact buccal bone wall and thick gingival biotype, treated by means of flapless surgery and an immediate implant crown may demonstrate limited risk for advanced midfacial recession (<10%). Proper risk assessment addressing diagnostic, surgical and restorative aspects is mandatory to avoid compromised outcome of IIT.

Single Implant Treatment in Healing Versus Healed Sites of the Anterior Maxilla: An Aesthetic Evaluation

PURPOSE The aim was to compare and document in detail the aesthetic outcome of single implant treatment in healing sites (early implant placement) with fully healed sites (conventional implant placement) of the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS A cross-sectional study in patients who had been treated by two periodontists and two prosthodontists in 2006 and 2007 was conducted. Surgical treatment involved standard flap elevation without releasing incisions and restorative procedures included cemented crowns in all patients. Only straightforward single implant treatments using Nobelreplace tapered TiUnite® implants (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) in healing sites (6-8 weeks following tooth extraction) and fully healed sites (≥6 months following tooth extraction) were considered with both neighboring teeth present and without the need for hard and/or soft tissue grafting. The aesthetic outcome was objectively rated using the pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic scrore (WES) by a blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment. Patients rated aesthetics by means of visual analogue scales. RESULTS Twenty-one out of 22 early and 25/27 conventional implant treatments were available for aesthetic evaluation after on average two and a half years of function (range 17-41 months). There were no significant differences for any of the criteria between the treatment concepts. Overall, papillae were most easy to satisfy, whereas alveolar process and tooth color most difficult. A thin-scalloped biotype was associated with low distal papillae (p=.041) and alveolar process deficiency (p=.039). Twenty-six percent of the cases were aesthetic failures (PES<8 and/or WES<6) and 13% showed an (almost) perfect outcome (PES≥12 and WES≥9). The remainder (61%) demonstrated acceptable aesthetics. There was no significant correlation between objective and subjective ratings. CONCLUSIONS Early and conventional single implant treatment yielded comparable aesthetic outcome. Albeit all treatments had been performed by experienced clinicians and only straightforward cases had been selected, 1 out of 4 cases were aesthetic failures and only a strict minority showed perfection. Research is required on the aesthetic outcome of alternative surgical procedures especially in high-risk patients with a thin-scalloped biotype.

Clinical, aesthetic and patient-related outcome of immediately loaded single implants in the anterior maxilla: a prospective study in extraction sockets, healed ridges and grafted sites

PURPOSE The objective of this prospective clinical study was to document the overall treatment outcome of immediately loaded single Astra Tech Osseospeed™ (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) implants placed in extraction sockets, healed ridges, and grafted sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-eight patients in need of a single implant in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were recruited. Patients were allocated to a conventional implant treatment (CIT) or immediate implant treatment (IIT) group on the basis of specific criteria. If the buccal bone plate was damaged or missing upon tooth removal, patients were allocated to a grafted implant treatment (GIT) group. Irrespective of the treatment concept, implants were immediately provisionalized. Hard and soft tissue alterations, aesthetic parameters (pink and white esthetic scores, [PES and WES]) and patients opinion (Oral Health Impact Profile [OHIP-14] questionnaires) were registered at different time points. RESULTS After 1 year of function, the overall implant survival rate was 98% with one failure following IIT. The mean bone level to the implant-abutment interface was 0.65 (SD 0.79), 0.85 (SD 0.64), and 0.56 mm (SD 0.44) for CIT, IIT, and GIT. Complete papilla loss was rare following either strategy. Mean midfacial recession amounted to 1.00 (SD 1.15), 0.12 (SD 0.78), and 0.49 mm (SD 0.82) for CIT, IIT, and GIT, respectively. The aesthetic outcome showed a mean PES of 10.30 (SD 1.89) and mean WES of 7.11 (SD 2.14), all patients considered. Patients satisfaction showed a significant improvement after 1 year of function on all seven domains (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS This prospective study showed that single implants clinically and aesthetically perform well under immediate non-occlusal loading conditions in the premaxilla. In this context, it is of pivotal importance to stress that patients were carefully selected for IIT and GIT.

The peri-implant sulcus compared with internal implant and suprastructure components: a microbiological analysis.

PURPOSE A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface, abutment-prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri-implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri-implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty-eight turned titanium Brånemark implants in eight systemically healthy patients (seven women, one man) under regular supportive care were examined. All implants had been placed in the maxilla and loaded with a screw-retained full-arch bridge for an average of 9.6 years. Gingival fluid samples were collected from the deepest sulcus per implant for microbiological analysis. As all fixed restorations were removed, the cotton pellet enclosed in the intra-coronal compartment and the abutment screw were retrieved and microbiologically evaluated. RESULTS The pellet enclosed in the suprastructure was very similar to the peri-implant sulcus in terms of bacterial detection frequencies and levels for practically all the species included in the panel. Yet, there was virtually no microbial link between these compartments. When comparing the abutment screw to the peri-implant sulcus, the majority of the species were less frequently found, and in lower numbers at the former. However, a relevant link in counts for a lot of bacteria was described between these compartments. Even though all implants in the present study showed no clinical signs of peri-implantitis, the high prevalence of numerous species associated with pathology was striking. CONCLUSIONS Intra-coronal compartments of screw-retained fixed restorations were heavily contaminated. The restorative margin may have been the principal pathway for bacterial leakage. Contamination of abutment screws most likely occurred from the peri-implant sulcus via the implant-abutment interface and abutment-prosthesis interface.

The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians

AIM A recent cluster analysis has identified three gingival biotypes among 100 periodontally healthy subjects based on different combinations of morphometric data related to maxillary front teeth and surrounding soft tissues. Patients with a thin-scalloped biotype are considered at risk because they have been associated with a compromised soft tissue response following surgical and/or restorative therapy. Hence, an accurate identification of these high-risk patients is warranted. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the precision of simple visual inspection as a method to identify the gingival biotype by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifteen clinicians (five Restorative Dentists, five Periodontists and five Students) were invited to assess the gingival biotype (thin-scalloped, thick-flat, thick-scalloped) of 100 periodontally healthy subjects based on clinical slides. Cluster analysis on these subjects was used as the gold standard and the accuracy in identifying the gingival biotype was determined using percentile agreement and kappa statistics. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability were also calculated. RESULTS The gingival biotype was accurately identified only in about half of the cases irrespective of the clinicians experience. The thick-flat biotype was mostly recognized especially by experienced clinicians (> or =70% of the cases). Nearly half of the thin-scalloped cases were misclassified. The intra-examiner repeatability was fair to substantial (kappa: 0.328-0.670) and the inter-examiner reproducibility was slight to moderate (kappa: 0.127-0.547). CONCLUSIONS Simple visual inspection may not be considered a valuable method to identify the gingival biotype as nearly half of the high-risk patients are overlooked.

Soft Tissue Preservation and Pink Aesthetics around Single Immediate Implant Restorations: A 1-Year Prospective Study

PURPOSE (1) To document soft tissue aspects using a specific protocol for immediate implant treatment (IIT) following single-tooth removal; (2) to evaluate whether this protocol allows preservation of pink aesthetics as objectively assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with a thick gingival biotype and intact buccal bone wall upon extraction of a single tooth in the aesthetic zone (15-25) were consecutively treated. The protocol included flapless extraction and implant surgery, socket grafting, immediate nonocclusal loading with a screw-retained provisional crown, and replacement by a permanent crown 6 months thereafter. The outcome was assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Cases demonstrating major alveolar process remodeling and/or advanced midfacial recession (>1 mm) at 3 months were additionally treated with a connective tissue graft (CTG). The emergence profile of the provisional crown was replicated for all permanent crowns. RESULTS Twenty-two patients (12 men, 10 women; mean age 50) were treated after tooth extraction for nonperiodontal reasons using a novel bone condensing implant with variable-thread design, conical connection, and platform switch (NobelActive®, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). One implant failed and mean marginal bone loss was 0.1 mm (p = .059). Temporary mesial papilla reduction occurred, whereas distal papilla reduction was permanent (mean 0.5 mm; p = .001). At 3 months, five cases demonstrated major alveolar process remodeling and two advanced midfacial recession. Hence, slight initial decline in the pink esthetic score (PES) (p = .053) was observed. CTG resulted in a steady improvement of the PES after 3 months (p ≤ .037). At 12 months, pink aesthetics (mean PES 12.15) was comparable to the preoperative status (mean PES 11.86; p = .293). Distal papillae had significantly deteriorated (p = .020) in this time span, whereas midfacial contour had significantly improved (p = .005). CONCLUSIONS Preservation of pink aesthetics is possible following IIT. However, to achieve that, CTG may be necessary in about one-third of the patients. Major alveolar process remodeling is the main reason for additional treatment.