Small bony dehiscence defects left for spontaneous healing demonstrated high implant survival rates with healthy and stable soft tissues. However, they revealed more vertical bone loss at the buccal aspect 6 months after implant insertion and also more marginal bone loss between crown insertion and 18 months after loading compared to sites treated with GBR.

Objective: The purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the scientific literature regarding the professional assessment of aesthetics in implant dentistry. Material and Methods: An electronic search of Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed, and complemented by a manual search. Clinical or validation studies (Part 1) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (Part 2) reporting parameters and methods for the assessment of aesthetics were included. The information regarding the assessment of aesthetics was extracted. The methodological quality of RCTs was evaluated by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 149 and 32 publications in Part 1 and Part 2, respectively. A great diversity with regard to parameters, methods and measurement units used for the assessment of aesthetics was found among the included studies. With respect to time points of assessment there were significant differences between the RCTs. Only two RCTs fulfilled all the criteria of the The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. Conclusions: Due to the differences of the study designs, parameters and methods used for the assessment of aesthetics, comparisons between studies should be interpreted with caution. Only a limited number of RCTs offer sound evidence on aesthetic outcomes in implant dentistry.

Objectives:To assess the early histological, microbiological, radiological, and clinical response to cemented and screw-retained all-ceramic single-tooth implant-supported reconstructions. Materials and methods:Patients with single-tooth implants were randomly allocated to receive a cemented lithium disilicate crown on a customized zirconia abutment (CEM) or a screw-retained crown with a directly veneered zirconia abutment (SCREW). At the screening visit, at crown insertion and at the 6-month follow-up, clinical parameters were measured at the implant and the contralateral tooth.Marginal bone levels, technical parameters, and esthetic outcomes were measured at the implants. At the 6-month follow-up, a microbiological test was performed and a soft tissue biopsy was harvested at the implants for histological analysis. Inflammatory cells and fibroblasts/fibrocytes were analyzed at the level of the sulcular epithelium, junctional epithelium, and connective tissue. The histological parameters were analyzed by means of a linear mixed model. Results: Thirty-three patients completed the study, and implant and crown survival rates were 100% at 6 months. Histologically, the number of inflammatory cells tended to be higher in group CEM (p > 0.05). Moreover, significantly less inflammatory cells and fibroblasts/fibrocytes were found in the sulcular epithelium compared to the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue (p < 0.001). Four patients were tested positive for periodontal marker pathogens at the 6-month followup, and three of them belonged to group CEM. From crown insertion to the 6-month follow-up, median marginal bone levels changed only minimally and measured 0.31 and 0.32 mm in group CEM and 0.47 and 0.36 mm in group SCREW, respectively.Clinical and esthetic parameters remained stable over time and were comparable between natural teeth and implants as well as between the groups. Conclusions:Cemented reconstructions were associated with more inflammatory cells, and more patients were diagnosed with periodonto-pathogens. Both types of reconstructions resulted in similar radiological (marginal bone levels) and clinical outcomes (bleeding on probing and probing depth). | 997THOMA eT Al.

Aim: To test whether or not the use of a short implant with a cantilever results in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants with single tooth reconstructions.Materials and methods: Thirty-six patients with two adjacent missing teeth in the posterior region were randomly assigned to receive either a single 6-mm implant with a cantilever (ONE-C) or two 6-mm implants (TWO). Fixed reconstructions were inserted 3-6 months after implant placement and patients were re-examined up to 5 years (FU-5).Results: A total of 26 patients were available for re-examination at FU-5. The survival rate amounted to 84.2% in ONE-C and to 80.4% in TWO (inter-group: p = .894).Technical complication rates amounted to 64.2% (ONE-C) and to 54.4% (TWO) (inter-group: p = 1.000). From baseline to FU-5, the median changes of the marginal bone levels were 0.13 mm in ONE-C and 0.05 mm in TWO (inter-group: p = .775).Probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque control record values showed no significant differences between the two treatment modalities (p > .05).Conclusions: Short implants with a cantilever render similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants at 5 years, however, they tend to fail at earlier time points suggesting an overload of the implants. Considering the modest survival rates, the clinical indication of either treatment option needs to be carefully evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01649531).

No abstract