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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ceruso, Francesco Mattia, Ieria, Irene, Tallarico, Marco, Meloni, Silvio Mario, Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata, Mastroianni, Alessandro, Zotti, Alessio, Gargari, Marco
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