Root-analogue implants compared to forced orthodontic extrusion: a retrospective analysis of clinical, radiological and esthetic outcomes after restoration

Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess clinical, radiological and esthetic outcomes of restorations supported by root-analogue implants (RAIs) or roots of severely damaged teeth after forced orthodontic extrusion (FOE).Materials and methodsClinical data regarding milled one-piece (titanium/zirconia roots and zirconia abutments) RAIs (REPLICATE™ System) and FOE were recorded and retrospectively evaluated for 40 patients by two investigators. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Functional and esthetic outcomes were assessed for n = 20 pre-molars and n = 20 anterior teeth via comparison of radiographic and digital images applying the novel Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Mann–Whitney-U-Test was used to compare the assessed parameters. Level of significance was set to p < 0.05.ResultsAfter a mean observation period of 18.4 ± 5.7 months for restorations supported by RAIs and 43.9 ± 16.4 months for restorations after FOE, mean FIPS scores were 9.2/8.8 ± 1.1/1.2 (RAIs) and 7.4/7.7 ± 1.3/1.5 (FOE), respectively. Krippendorff’s alpha coefficients did not reveal unacceptable inter-rater reliabilities regarding the investigators and applicability of FIPS. Significant differences were documented when comparing restorations after FOE or supported by RAIs regarding bone loss (p < 0.01), presence of papillae (p < 0.05) and quality and quantity of mucosa (p < 0.02) in favor of FOE.ConclusionsWithin the main limitations of sample size and the retrospective study design, both concepts seem to provide clinically acceptable results.Clinical relevanceBone- and tissue-preserving characteristics regarding the concept of FOE are promising. It could be applicable for socket preservation and subsequent conventional implant placements in an adapted workflow.