Cargando…
Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation
To evaluate the implant and prosthetic of two implants with different surfaces and neck design. Enrolled patients received bone level, 12° conical connection implants (Nobel Parallel, Nobel Biocare; NOBEL group) with anodized surface (TiUnite) and roughness of 1.35 μm, or transmucosal implant system...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8779815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35057240 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15020511 |
_version_ | 1784637670012485632 |
---|---|
author | Ceruso, Francesco Mattia Ieria, Irene Tallarico, Marco Meloni, Silvio Mario Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata Mastroianni, Alessandro Zotti, Alessio Gargari, Marco |
author_facet | Ceruso, Francesco Mattia Ieria, Irene Tallarico, Marco Meloni, Silvio Mario Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata Mastroianni, Alessandro Zotti, Alessio Gargari, Marco |
author_sort | Ceruso, Francesco Mattia |
collection | PubMed |
description | To evaluate the implant and prosthetic of two implants with different surfaces and neck design. Enrolled patients received bone level, 12° conical connection implants (Nobel Parallel, Nobel Biocare; NOBEL group) with anodized surface (TiUnite) and roughness of 1.35 μm, or transmucosal implant system (Prama, Sweden and Martina; PRAMA group) with convergent collar, ZIrTi surface, and roughness 1.4–1.7 μm. Both implants were made of pure grade IV titanium, with similar diameter and length, chosen according to the dentistry department availability and patient’s request. After early prosthesis delivery, patients were filled for at least one year. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, physiological marginal bone remodeling, periodontal parameters and pink esthetic score (PES). Results: Fifteen patients were allocated and treated in each group. At the one-year follow-up, three patients dropped out, one in the NOBEL group and two in the PRAMA group. During the entire time of investigation, all implants survived and the prostheses were successful. No statistically significant differences were found in term of marginal bone loss, periodontal parameters, and aesthetics (p > 0.05). Conclusion: With the limitations of the present study, both implant systems showed successful clinical results. Finally, many other clinical and surgical variables may influenced marginal bone levels, implant survival, and periodontal parameters. More homogenous clinical trials with larger samples are needed to confirm these preliminary conclusions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8779815 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87798152022-01-22 Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation Ceruso, Francesco Mattia Ieria, Irene Tallarico, Marco Meloni, Silvio Mario Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata Mastroianni, Alessandro Zotti, Alessio Gargari, Marco Materials (Basel) Article To evaluate the implant and prosthetic of two implants with different surfaces and neck design. Enrolled patients received bone level, 12° conical connection implants (Nobel Parallel, Nobel Biocare; NOBEL group) with anodized surface (TiUnite) and roughness of 1.35 μm, or transmucosal implant system (Prama, Sweden and Martina; PRAMA group) with convergent collar, ZIrTi surface, and roughness 1.4–1.7 μm. Both implants were made of pure grade IV titanium, with similar diameter and length, chosen according to the dentistry department availability and patient’s request. After early prosthesis delivery, patients were filled for at least one year. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, physiological marginal bone remodeling, periodontal parameters and pink esthetic score (PES). Results: Fifteen patients were allocated and treated in each group. At the one-year follow-up, three patients dropped out, one in the NOBEL group and two in the PRAMA group. During the entire time of investigation, all implants survived and the prostheses were successful. No statistically significant differences were found in term of marginal bone loss, periodontal parameters, and aesthetics (p > 0.05). Conclusion: With the limitations of the present study, both implant systems showed successful clinical results. Finally, many other clinical and surgical variables may influenced marginal bone levels, implant survival, and periodontal parameters. More homogenous clinical trials with larger samples are needed to confirm these preliminary conclusions. MDPI 2022-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8779815/ /pubmed/35057240 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15020511 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Ceruso, Francesco Mattia Ieria, Irene Tallarico, Marco Meloni, Silvio Mario Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata Mastroianni, Alessandro Zotti, Alessio Gargari, Marco Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation |
title | Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation |
title_full | Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation |
title_fullStr | Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation |
title_short | Comparison between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation |
title_sort | comparison between early loaded single implants with internal conical connection or implants with transmucosal neck design: a non-randomized controlled trial with 1-year clinical, aesthetics, and radiographic evaluation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8779815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35057240 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15020511 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cerusofrancescomattia comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT ieriairene comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT tallaricomarco comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT melonisilviomario comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT lumbauaureaimmacolata comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT mastroiannialessandro comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT zottialessio comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation AT gargarimarco comparisonbetweenearlyloadedsingleimplantswithinternalconicalconnectionorimplantswithtransmucosalneckdesignanonrandomizedcontrolledtrialwith1yearclinicalaestheticsandradiographicevaluation |