Cargando…

Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Conditioning by Means of Customized Healing Abutment: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Introduction: An optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes a novel workflow for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile. Materials and Methods: Two ra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beretta, Mario, Poli, Pier Paolo, Pieriboni, Silvia, Tansella, Sebastian, Manfredini, Mattia, Cicciù, Marco, Maiorana, Carlo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31546800
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12183041
Descripción
Sumario:Introduction: An optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes a novel workflow for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile. Materials and Methods: Two randomized groups were selected. Ten control group participants received standard healing screws at the surgical stage. Ten individualized healing abutments were Computer aided Design/Computer aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated out of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) restoration material in a fully digital workflow and seated at the surgical stage in the test group. The modified healing abutment shape was extracted from a virtual library. The standard triangulation language (STL) files of a premolar and a molar were obtained considering the coronal anatomy up to the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). After a healing period ranging from 1 to 3 months depending on the location of the surgical site, namely, mandible or maxilla, a digital impression was taken. The functional implant prosthodontics score (FIPS) and the numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain were recorded and compared. Results: The mean FIPS value for the test group was 9.1 ± 0.9 while the control group mean value was 7.1 ± 0.9. In the test group, pain assessment at crown placement presented a mean value of 0.5 ± 0.7. On the contrary, the control group showed a mean value of 5.5 ± 1.6. Conclusions: Patients in the test group showed higher FIPS values and lower NRS scores during the early phases compared to the control group.