Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors : A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study. / Roccuzzo, Andrea; Imber, Jean-Claude; Lempert, Jakob; Hosseini, Mandana; Jensen, Simon Storgård.

I: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Bind 33, Nr. 8, 2022, s. 844-857.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Roccuzzo, A, Imber, J-C, Lempert, J, Hosseini, M & Jensen, SS 2022, 'Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study', Clinical Oral Implants Research, bind 33, nr. 8, s. 844-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13966

APA

Roccuzzo, A., Imber, J-C., Lempert, J., Hosseini, M., & Jensen, S. S. (2022). Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 33(8), 844-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13966

Vancouver

Roccuzzo A, Imber J-C, Lempert J, Hosseini M, Jensen SS. Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2022;33(8):844-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13966

Author

Roccuzzo, Andrea ; Imber, Jean-Claude ; Lempert, Jakob ; Hosseini, Mandana ; Jensen, Simon Storgård. / Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors : A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study. I: Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2022 ; Bind 33, Nr. 8. s. 844-857.

Bibtex

@article{99cb26d3edf442c3af26eec88a27858e,
title = "Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed Narrow-Diameter Implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors (MLIs).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal Crestal Bone Level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The aesthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen Index Score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire.RESULTS: One-hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants {\O}2.9mm (n = 50) or {\O}3.3mm (n = 50) were included. One {\O}3.3mm implant was lost and 7 patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.342). Good to excellent aesthetic scores (i.e. 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e. loss of retention, abutment fracture, chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = 0.110).CONCLUSION: The use of {\O}2.9mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as {\O}3.3mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.",
author = "Andrea Roccuzzo and Jean-Claude Imber and Jakob Lempert and Mandana Hosseini and Jensen, {Simon Storg{\aa}rd}",
note = "This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1111/clr.13966",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "844--857",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors

T2 - A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study

AU - Roccuzzo, Andrea

AU - Imber, Jean-Claude

AU - Lempert, Jakob

AU - Hosseini, Mandana

AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård

N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed Narrow-Diameter Implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors (MLIs).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal Crestal Bone Level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The aesthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen Index Score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire.RESULTS: One-hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants Ø2.9mm (n = 50) or Ø3.3mm (n = 50) were included. One Ø3.3mm implant was lost and 7 patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.342). Good to excellent aesthetic scores (i.e. 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e. loss of retention, abutment fracture, chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = 0.110).CONCLUSION: The use of Ø2.9mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as Ø3.3mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed Narrow-Diameter Implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors (MLIs).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal Crestal Bone Level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The aesthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen Index Score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire.RESULTS: One-hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants Ø2.9mm (n = 50) or Ø3.3mm (n = 50) were included. One Ø3.3mm implant was lost and 7 patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.342). Good to excellent aesthetic scores (i.e. 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e. loss of retention, abutment fracture, chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = 0.110).CONCLUSION: The use of Ø2.9mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as Ø3.3mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.

U2 - 10.1111/clr.13966

DO - 10.1111/clr.13966

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 35763401

VL - 33

SP - 844

EP - 857

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 8

ER -

ID: 311877519