Abstract
The objective was to investigate clinical and radiological outcomes of rehabilitations with root-analogue implants (RAIs). Patients restored with RAIs, supporting single crowns or fixed dental prostheses, were recruited for follow-up examinations. Besides clinical and esthetical evaluations, X-rays were taken and compared with the records. Patients were asked to evaluate the treatment using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). For statistical analyses, mixed linear models were used. A total of 107 RAIs were installed in one dental office. Of these, 31 were available for follow-up examinations. For those remaining, survival has been verified via phone. RAIs were loaded after a mean healing time of 6.6 ± 2.5 months. 12.1 ± 6.9 months after loading, a mean marginal bone loss (MBL) of 1.20 ± 0.73 mm was measured. Progression of MBL significantly decreased after loading (p = 0.013). The mean pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) was 15.35 ± 2.33 at follow-up. A survival rate of 94.4% was calculated after a mean follow-up of 18.9 ± 2.4 months after surgery. Immediate installation of RAIs does not seem to reduce MBL, as known from the literature regarding screw-type implants, and might not be recommended for daily routine. Nevertheless, they deliver esthetically satisfying results.
Highlights
Dental implants are successfully used for the replacement of missing and hopeless teeth with a mean survival rate of 94.6 ± 5.97% after 10 years of clinical service [1]
With the help of Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) data gathered from Cone Beam Computed Tomographies (CBCT), accurate production of root-analogue implants (RAIs) has been made possible prior to surgery [18,19]
Even if a subgingival restoration margin of more than 0.5 mm increases the risk of undetected cement [45], potentially resulting in gingival inflammation, this study revealed favorable results regarding peri-implant soft tissues
Summary
Dental implants are successfully used for the replacement of missing and hopeless teeth with a mean survival rate of 94.6 ± 5.97% after 10 years of clinical service [1]. With the objective to counteract these processes by replacing extracted roots/teeth with anatomically shaped copies, the Dental Polymer Implant Concept was already introduced in 1969 [8]. Thereby, the technical possibilities and concepts did allow for the fabrication of root-analogues but not for immediate implant installation in the proper meaning of the word. This resulted in a temporal offset between the removal of the teeth and implant installations. In order to allow for immediate implant installation of RAIs, they needed to be manufactured prior to the extractions. No long-term clinical data and studies are available, allowing for critical assumptions regarding the former treatment concepts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
