Success of 6-mm Implants with Single-Tooth Restorations: A 3-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

The aim of the study was to test whether implants of 6 mm in length perform equally well as 10-mm implants in terms of survival and marginal bone-level changes when supporting single crowns. Patients with a posterior single-tooth gap were randomly allocated to either the placement of a 6-mm (test) or 10-mm implant (control). The treatment protocol allowed for internal sinus lift but not for lateral bone augmentation. After a healing period of 10 wk, implants were loaded with screw-retained single crowns. Survival rates, number of pockets ≥5 mm, and bleeding-on-probing were assessed clinically. The change of marginal bone level and crown-to-implant ratios were analyzed by 2 examiners. Longitudinal intragroup analyses for marginal bone levels were performed applying the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Intergroup differences at baseline and at 3 y were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The effect of implant length and crown-to-implant ratio on changes of marginal bone level also was determined. Of 94 implants placed (47 test and 47 control), 78 implants (40 test and 38 control) were available for follow-up examination at 3 y of loading. One test implant was lost during the second year. Hence, implant survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups after 3 y (98% test; 100% control). We found no significant change in the crestal bone level from baseline to 3 y for test and control implants with -0.19 ± 0.62 mm and -0.33 ± 0.71 mm, respectively. The intergroup difference was not significant. Crown-to-implant ratios were not associated with a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss. However, the number of sites with pockets ≥5 mm was significantly higher in the test group. Based on the 3-y assessment, the use of 6-mm implants can be considered a viable option when reconstructing posterior single tooth gaps (German Clinical Trials Registry: DRKS00006290)

Soft tissue contour and radiographic evaluation of ridge preservation in early implant placement: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives: To compare two ridge preservation techniques and spontaneous healing in terms of hard and soft tissue changes 2 months after tooth extraction. Material and methods: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial and included 75 patients. After single tooth extraction in the maxillary incisor/premolar area, patients were randomly allocated to one of the following groups: (a) ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a collagen matrix (CM-group), (b) ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a free palatal graft (PG-group) or (c) spontaneous healing (control). Eight weeks after tooth extraction, implants were placed and clinical, profilometric and radiographic evaluations were performed. In addition, the need for further guided bone regeneration (GBR) at implant placement was assessed. The differences between the treatment groups were compared with the One-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test with the corresponding post hoc analysis. The proportions of the categorical parameters were compared with the Fisher´s exact test. Results: Seventy-five patients underwent early implant placement 8 weeks after tooth extraction and were evaluated. CM-group (−0.9 SD 0.6 mm) and PG-group (−1.0 SD 0.8 mm) showed less horizontal bone resorption compared to the control group (−3.2 SD 2.1 mm) (p <.001). Moreover, the necessity of GBR at implant placement was significantly less in CM-group (32%) and PG-group (24%) when compared to control group (72%) (p =.001). Patients in CM-group experienced less pain than PG-group, one week after tooth extraction (p =.042). No significant differences were found regarding graft evaluation, post-operative complications, and soft tissue contour. Conclusions: Ridge preservation using a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a collagen matrix or a palatal graft, results in less bone resorption and fewer GBR procedures at early implant placement compared to spontaneous healing

The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review

Background The continuous development in dental processing ensures new opportunities in the field of fixed prosthodontics in a complete virtual environment without any physical model situations. The aim was to compare fully digitalized workflows to conventional and/or mixed analog-digital workflows for the treatment with tooth-borne or implant-supported fixed reconstructions. Methods A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar) plus manual search up to 2016–09-16 focusing on RCTs investigating complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics with regard to economics or esthetics or patient-centered outcomes with or without follow-up or survival/success rate analysis as well as complication assessment of at least 1 year under function. The search strategy was assembled from MeSH-Terms and unspecific free-text words: {((“Dental Prosthesis” [MeSH]) OR (“Crowns” [MeSH]) OR (“Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported” [MeSH])) OR ((crown) OR (fixed dental prosthesis) OR (fixed reconstruction) OR (dental bridge) OR (implant crown) OR (implant prosthesis) OR (implant restoration) OR (implant reconstruction))} AND {(“Computer-Aided Design” [MeSH]) OR ((digital workflow) OR (digital technology) OR (computerized dentistry) OR (intraoral scan) OR (digital impression) OR (scanbody) OR (virtual design) OR (digital design) OR (cad/cam) OR (rapid prototyping) OR (monolithic) OR (full-contour))} AND {(“Dental Technology” [MeSH) OR ((conventional workflow) OR (lost-wax-technique) OR (porcelain-fused-to-metal) OR (PFM) OR (implant impression) OR (hand-layering) OR (veneering) OR (framework))} AND {((“Study, Feasibility” [MeSH]) OR (“Survival” [MeSH]) OR (“Success” [MeSH]) OR (“Economics” [MeSH]) OR (“Costs, Cost Analysis” [MeSH]) OR (“Esthetics, Dental” [MeSH]) OR (“Patient Satisfaction” [MeSH])) OR ((feasibility) OR (efficiency) OR (patient-centered outcome))}. Assessment of risk of bias in selected studies was done at a ‘trial level’ including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A judgment of risk of bias was assigned if one or more key domains had a high or unclear risk of bias. An official registration of the systematic review was not performed. Results The systematic search identified 67 titles, 32 abstracts thereof were screened, and subsequently, three full-texts included for data extraction. Analysed RCTs were heterogeneous without follow-up. One study demonstrated that fully digitally produced dental crowns revealed the feasibility of the process itself; however, the marginal precision was lower for lithium disilicate (LS2) restorations (113.8 μm) compared to conventional metal-ceramic (92.4 μm) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) crowns (68.5 μm) (p < 0.05). Another study showed that leucite-reinforced glass ceramic crowns were esthetically favoured by the patients (8/2 crowns) and clinicians (7/3 crowns) (p < 0.05). The third study investigated implant crowns. The complete digital workflow was more than twofold faster (75.3 min) in comparison to the mixed analog-digital workflow (156.6 min) (p < 0.05). No RCTs could be found investigating multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP). Conclusions The number of RCTs testing complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics is low. Scientifically proven recommendations for clinical routine cannot be given at this time. Research with high-quality trials seems to be slower than the industrial progress of available digital applications. Future research with well-designed RCTs including follow-up observation is compellingly necessary in the field of complete digital processing

Five-Year Survival of Short Single-Tooth Implants (6 mm): A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether 6-mm dental implants in the posterior segments of either jaw perform equally well in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared with 10-mm implants after 5 y of loading. Patients with single-tooth gaps in the posterior area who were scheduled for implant therapy were randomly assigned to a group receiving either a 6- or 10-mm implant. After a healing period of 10 wk, implants were loaded with a screw-retained single crown and followed up at yearly intervals. Of 96 patients, 86 could be recalled after 5 y. The implant survival rates amounted to 91% (95% confidence interval: 0.836 to 0.998) for the 6-mm group and 100% for the 10-mm group ( P = 0.036). Median crown-to-implant (C/I) ratios were 1.75 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.50 to 1.90) for the 6-mm group and 1.04 (IQR, 0.95 to 1.15) for the 10-mm group, whereas the median marginal bone levels measured -0.29 mm (IQR, -0.92 to 0.23) for the 6-mm group and -0.15 mm (IQR: -0.93 - 0.41) for the 10-mm group after 5 y. The C/I ratio turned out to be statistically significant ( P < 0.001), whereas marginal bone levels showed no significant difference between the groups. The 6-mm implants exhibited significantly lower survival rates than the 10-mm implants over 5 y, whereas there was no difference between upper and lower jaws in terms of survival ( P = 0.58). Lost implants did not show any sign of marginal bone loss or peri-implant infection previous to loss of osseointegration. High C/I ratio and implant length had no significant effect on marginal bone level changes or technical and biological complications (German Clinical Trials Registry: DRKS00006290)

Soft tissue contour and radiographic evaluation of ridge preservation in early implant placement: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES To compare two ridge preservation techniques and spontaneous healing in terms of hard and soft tissue changes 2 months after tooth extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial and included 75 patients. After single tooth extraction in the maxillary incisor/premolar area, patients were randomly allocated to one of the following groups: 1) ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a collagen matrix (CM-group), 2) ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a free palatal graft (PG-group) or 3) spontaneous healing (control). Eight weeks after tooth extraction, implants were placed and clinical, profilometric and radiographic evaluations were performed. In addition, the need for further guided bone regeneration (GBR) at implant placement was assessed. The differences between the treatment groups were compared with the One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test with the corresponding post hoc analysis. The proportions of the categorical parameters were compared with the Fisher´s exact test. RESULTS Seventy-five patients underwent early implant placement 8 weeks after tooth extraction and were evaluated. CM-group (-0.9 SD 0.6 mm) and PG-group (-1.0 SD 0.8 mm) showed less horizontal bone resorption compared to the control group (-3.2 SD 2.1 mm) (p<.001). Moreover, the necessity of GBR at implant placement was significantly less in CM-group (32%) and PG-group (24%) when compared to control group (72%) (p=.001). Patients in CM-group experienced less pain than PG-group, one week after tooth extraction (p=.042). No significant differences were found regarding graft evaluation, post-operative complications and soft tissue contour. CONCLUSIONS Ridge preservation using a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a collagen matrix or a palatal graft, results in less bone resorption and fewer GBR procedures at early implant placement compared to spontaneous healing