Does immediate loading of a single implant in the healed anterior maxillary ridge improve the aesthetic outcome compared to conventional loading?

Baireddy, Radhika J; Cook, Neil; Li, Siwei; Barrak, Fadi

doi:10.1038/s41405-021-00083-4

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There were ten papers published which examined the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of health technologies and inter ventions. 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28 This included a protocol on a study into water fluoridation, 20 a scoping review for salivary COVID-19 diagnostics 21 and a pilot trial for the use of propolis following head and neck radiotherapy. 22 As noted above, print journals such as the BDJ are aimed at a wide readership and are less able to prioritise publishing protocols and early results.…”

Section: Health Technology Assessment/clinical Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

BDJ Open 2021 - our most successful year to date

Lewney¹

2022

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to provide an update on the previous version published towards the end of last year, titled ' BDJ Open (2019-2020) and the advantages of open access publishing'. In this paper, we will highlight articles published throughout 2021, in order to focus on which areas authors felt were important to publish open access and also which areas have been expanded upon in the journal. Furthermore, this paper will examine how open access publishing in BDJ Open has enabled the continuous process of hypothesis testing to be shared more widely, as well as how publishing protocols and early results open access gives strength to that by allowing earlier opportunity for comment by other researchers, both through the peer review process and through further correspondence to authors directly and to the journal editors who publish their work.

show abstract

Section: Health Technology Assessment/clinical Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

BDJ Open 2021 - our most successful year to date

Lewney¹

2022

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants for single-tooth restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone: a 5-year prospective single-cohort multicenter analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This open, single-cohort, multicenter, prospective study investigated the efficacy of immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implant for single-tooth restorations in the anterior and premolar regions of the maxilla after 5 years of function. Materials and methods All implants were placed in healed sites and immediately provisionalized. MBLs, soft-tissue parameters, and oral-health impact profile (OHIP) were evaluated at implant insertion, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used for statistical and implant survival/success analyses, respectively. Results Seventy-seven patients (81 implants) completed the 5-year follow-up. The 5-year cumulative survival and success rates were 97.8%, and the mean MBL change from implant insertion to 5 years was − 0.80 ± 1.13 mm. Optimal papilla index scores were observed at 90.1% of sites at 5 years compared with 32.8% of sites at insertion. Pink esthetic score, modified bleeding and plaque indices, and OHIP showed statistically significant improvement at the 5-year follow-up. Conclusions Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants promote marginal bone stability and excellent esthetic outcomes after 5 years of function. Clinical relevance This treatment is a viable option for patients requiring immediately provisionalized single-tooth restorations in the esthetic zone and shows favorable long-term clinical outcomes, including marginal bone stability and excellent esthetics.

show abstract

Rehabilitation of aesthetic zone with narrow maxillary ridge by staged implant protocol

Trivedi,

Shetty,

Joshi

et al. 2024

APRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It can be difficult to achieve an aesthetically pleasing implant-supported restoration in the maxillary anterior region. With regard to the variety of factors that could affect the therapy, the treatment planning for an implant restoration is distinct. A number of elements, including those linked to the patient, careful planning of the course of treatment, implant and abutment selection, soft tissue contour, implant axis, occlusion, and other considerations, all contribute to the final clinical result. Implant supported restorations can have more prosthetic flexibility as a result of the option to select multi-unit abutments in oral implantology. Multi-unit abutments have advantages in that they provide good fit and performance together with predictable aesthetics, which significantly increases the efficacy of prostheses supported by implants. This case report describes the rehabilitation of a 42-year-old male patient with a partially edentulous arch in the maxillary anterior area using an implant-supported restoration and a multi-unit abutment.

show abstract

Does immediate loading of a single implant in the healed anterior maxillary ridge improve the aesthetic outcome compared to conventional loading?

Cited by 4 publications

References 40 publications

BDJ Open 2021 - our most successful year to date

BDJ Open 2021 - our most successful year to date

Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants for single-tooth restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone: a 5-year prospective single-cohort multicenter analysis

Rehabilitation of aesthetic zone with narrow maxillary ridge by staged implant protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About