Tim De Rouck

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.

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.

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.

Four Modalities of Single Implant Treatment in the Anterior Maxilla: A Clinical, Radiographic, and Aesthetic Evaluation

PURPOSE To document the outcome of single implants in the anterior maxilla following four routine treatment modalities when performed by experienced clinicians in daily practice using the same implant system and biomaterials. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective study in patients who had been treated by two periodontists and two prosthodontists in 2006 and 2007 was conducted. The four treatment modalities practically covered every clinical situation and included standard implant treatment (SIT), immediate implant treatment (IIT), implant treatment in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR), and implant treatment in grafted bone (BGR) harvested from the chin. All implants were installed via flap surgery. Patients were clinically and radiographically examined. Complications were registered and the aesthetic outcome (pink esthetic score [PES] and white esthetic score [WES]) was rated. A blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment performed all evaluations. Patients aesthetic satisfaction was also registered. RESULTS One hundred four out of 115 eligible patients (44 SIT, 28 IIT, 18 GBR, and 14 BGR) received at least one single NobelReplace tapered TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) implant in the anterior maxilla and were available for evaluation. Clinical parameters (implant survival: 93%, mean plaque level: 24%, mean bleeding on probing: 33%, and mean probing depth: 3.2 mm) and mean bone level (1.19 mm) did not differ significantly between treatment modalities. Postoperative complications were more common following GBR/BGR (>61%) when compared with SIT/IIT (<18%) (p < .001). BGR was in 4/14 patients associated with permanent sensory complications at the donor site. Technical complications occurred in 9/104 patients. SIT and IIT showed similar soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 10.07 and 10.88, respectively), however major alveolar process deficiency was common (>15%). PES was 9.65 for GBR. BGR showed inferior soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 9.00; p = .045) and shorter distal papillae were found following GBR/BGR (p = .009). Periodontal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 13.0, p < .001), GBR/BGR (OR: 4.3, p = .004), and a thin-scalloped gingival biotype (OR: 3.7, p = .011) increased the risk for incomplete distal papillae. WES was 7.98 for all patients considered. Poor agreement was found between objective and subjective aesthetic ratings. CONCLUSIONS All treatment modalities were predictable from a clinical and radiographic point of view. However, advanced reconstructive surgery, especially BGR, increased the risk for complications and compromised aesthetics. Research is required on the prevention and minimally invasive treatment of buccal bone defects at the time of tooth loss to avoid complex therapy.

Single Implant Treatment in Healing versus Healed Sites of the Anterior Maxilla: A Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation

PURPOSE The aim was to document the Nobelreplace tapered TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) implant system used by experienced clinicians in daily practice for replacing single maxillary anterior teeth and to compare the clinical and radiographic outcome between implants installed in healing sites (early implant placement) and fully healed sites (conventional implant placement) after on average two and a half years of function. MATERIAL 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 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. Clinical and radiographic analyses of all implants were performed by a blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment. RESULTS Forty-nine of the 53 eligible single implants (22 early and 27 conventionally placed implants) in 44/48 patients were available for scrutiny. There was no significant difference in implant survival between early (95%) and conventionally (93%) installed implants (p = 1.000). Mean bone level to the implant-abutment interface was 1.25 and 1.02 mm for early and conventional implant placement, respectively (p = .220). In spite of fairly low plaque levels (26%), overall peri-implant bleeding was quite prevalent (36%). Mean peri-implant probing depth was 3.3 mm. Five restorations had experienced technical complications. CONCLUSIONS Single Nobelreplace tapered TiUnite® implants installed in healing as well as in healed sites of the anterior maxilla are predictable. Both strategies seem equally successful in terms of implant survival, bone remodeling, clinical response, and risk for complications.