Andrea Roccuzzo DDS, MAS, PhD, Jean-Claude Imber DDS, MAS, Jakob Lempert DDS, Simon Storgård Jensen DDS
{"title":"用两颗窄直径种植体替代先天性上颌侧切牙缺失的临床、放射学和美学效果:为期 3 年的前瞻性临床研究。","authors":"Andrea Roccuzzo DDS, MAS, PhD, Jean-Claude Imber DDS, MAS, Jakob Lempert DDS, Simon Storgård Jensen DDS","doi":"10.1111/cid.13339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>To present the 3-year clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors rehabilitated with two narrow-diameter implants (NDIs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The original population consisted of 100 patients rehabilitated with a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia single-unit crown supported by either a Ø2.9 mm (Test) or a Ø3.3 mm (Control) NDI (<i>n</i> = 50). At the 1- and 3-year follow-up (T2, T3), implant survival rate, crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological, and technical complications were recorded, while the assessment of the aesthetic outcomes was performed using the Copenhagen Index Score.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Seventy-four patients Ø2.9 mm (<i>n</i> = 39) or Ø3.3 mm (<i>n</i> = 35) reached T3, as 24 patients were lost to follow-up and 1 implant (Ø3.3 mm) was removed. Throughout the observation period, minimal CBL changes (i.e., <1 mm) were detected between groups. Despite the positive aesthetic scores recorded (i.e., 1–2), at T3 20% of patients rehabilitated with a Ø3.3 mm versus 2.6% of patients Ø2.9 mm displayed an alveolar process deficiency (Score 3). No additional technical and/or mechanical complications were recorded between T2 and T3. Tooth vitality was maintained in all neighboring teeth. Peri-implant probing depths and plaque scores remained low in both groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The use of 2.9 or 3.3 diameter implants showed comparable favorable mid-term results in terms of survival rate, CBL, and aesthetic outcomes. Hence, clinicians should rely on the use of such NDIs when replacing maxillary lateral incisors.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"26 4","pages":"777-786"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.13339","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes at two narrow-diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 3-year prospective, clinical study\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Roccuzzo DDS, MAS, PhD, Jean-Claude Imber DDS, MAS, Jakob Lempert DDS, Simon Storgård Jensen DDS\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>To present the 3-year clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors rehabilitated with two narrow-diameter implants (NDIs).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The original population consisted of 100 patients rehabilitated with a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia single-unit crown supported by either a Ø2.9 mm (Test) or a Ø3.3 mm (Control) NDI (<i>n</i> = 50). At the 1- and 3-year follow-up (T2, T3), implant survival rate, crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological, and technical complications were recorded, while the assessment of the aesthetic outcomes was performed using the Copenhagen Index Score.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Seventy-four patients Ø2.9 mm (<i>n</i> = 39) or Ø3.3 mm (<i>n</i> = 35) reached T3, as 24 patients were lost to follow-up and 1 implant (Ø3.3 mm) was removed. Throughout the observation period, minimal CBL changes (i.e., <1 mm) were detected between groups. Despite the positive aesthetic scores recorded (i.e., 1–2), at T3 20% of patients rehabilitated with a Ø3.3 mm versus 2.6% of patients Ø2.9 mm displayed an alveolar process deficiency (Score 3). No additional technical and/or mechanical complications were recorded between T2 and T3. Tooth vitality was maintained in all neighboring teeth. Peri-implant probing depths and plaque scores remained low in both groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The use of 2.9 or 3.3 diameter implants showed comparable favorable mid-term results in terms of survival rate, CBL, and aesthetic outcomes. Hence, clinicians should rely on the use of such NDIs when replacing maxillary lateral incisors.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"777-786\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.13339\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13339\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13339","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes at two narrow-diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 3-year prospective, clinical study
Introduction
To present the 3-year clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors rehabilitated with two narrow-diameter implants (NDIs).
Methods
The original population consisted of 100 patients rehabilitated with a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia single-unit crown supported by either a Ø2.9 mm (Test) or a Ø3.3 mm (Control) NDI (n = 50). At the 1- and 3-year follow-up (T2, T3), implant survival rate, crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological, and technical complications were recorded, while the assessment of the aesthetic outcomes was performed using the Copenhagen Index Score.
Results
Seventy-four patients Ø2.9 mm (n = 39) or Ø3.3 mm (n = 35) reached T3, as 24 patients were lost to follow-up and 1 implant (Ø3.3 mm) was removed. Throughout the observation period, minimal CBL changes (i.e., <1 mm) were detected between groups. Despite the positive aesthetic scores recorded (i.e., 1–2), at T3 20% of patients rehabilitated with a Ø3.3 mm versus 2.6% of patients Ø2.9 mm displayed an alveolar process deficiency (Score 3). No additional technical and/or mechanical complications were recorded between T2 and T3. Tooth vitality was maintained in all neighboring teeth. Peri-implant probing depths and plaque scores remained low in both groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion
The use of 2.9 or 3.3 diameter implants showed comparable favorable mid-term results in terms of survival rate, CBL, and aesthetic outcomes. Hence, clinicians should rely on the use of such NDIs when replacing maxillary lateral incisors.
期刊介绍:
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.