Marginal soft tissue stability around conical abutments inserted with the one abutment‐one time protocol after 5 years of prosthetic loading

Canullo, Luigi; Pesce, Paolo; Tronchi, Mauro; Fiorellini, Joseph P.; Amari, Yoshiyuki; Peñarrocha, David

doi:10.1111/cid.12683

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, after implantation, and even once osseointegration has been reached, bone undergoes a constant remodeling which is also influenced by occlusal loads, abutment characteristics, platform switching, etc. [5][6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Implant Thread Morphology on Primary Stability: A Prospective Clinical Study

Menini

Bagnasco

Calimodio

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of two implants with the same macro- and micromorphology but different thread design and analyze their clinical outcomes over a one-year period. Materials and Methods. 14 patients needing a partial rehabilitation with a delayed loading approach (DEL group: 9 patients) or a full-arch rehabilitation treated with immediately loaded fixed prostheses supported by 4 implants following the Columbus Bridge Protocol (CBP) (IL group: 5 patients) were included. In each patient, at least one SY (implant with standard threads) and one SL implant (implant with an augmented depth of the threads) were randomly inserted. Primary outcome measures were the number of threads exposed at a torque of 30 Ncm and 50 Ncm and final insertion torque. Secondary outcome measures were implant and prosthetic failure, peri-implant bone resorption, and periodontal parameters: bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), and probing depth (PD) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months of healing. Results. Nineteen SY and 19 SL implants were inserted in 14 patients. Twenty implants (10 SL and 10 SY) were inserted in the IL group, while 18 (9 SL and 9 SY) were inserted in the DEL group and followed-up for 12 months. No patients dropped out. No implants and prostheses failed. No biological complications were identified. No significant differences were found between SY and SL implants comparing the number of exposed threads when inserting the implant with a torque insertion of 30 N (T student test p=.142 and U test p=.164). At 50 N, no threads were visible in either groups. Final torque insertion values were higher for SL (mean: 48.42 Ncm) compared to SY implants (mean: 43.42 Ncm) without a statistically significant difference. All the implants showed good clinical outcomes at the 1-year-in-function visit. Conclusions. After 12 months of function, both implant types provided good clinical outcomes without statistically significant differences between the two groups. A difference in insertion torque (even if not statistically significant) was found with higher insertion torque values for SL implants with a larger thread depth.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Implant Thread Morphology on Primary Stability: A Prospective Clinical Study

Menini

Bagnasco

Calimodio

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty‐two of the included studies (Basler et al, 2018; Benic et al, 2017; Bertl et al, 2017; Bittner et al, 2020; Borges et al, 2020; Cabanes‐Gumbau et al, 2019; Canullo et al, 2018; Clementini et al, 2020; De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Eeckhout et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Friberg & Jemt, 2012; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Hinze et al, 2018; Hosseini et al, 2020; Huber et al, 2018; Jiang et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; Schneider et al, 2011; Thoma et al, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019; Wittneben et al, 2016; Zeltner et al, 2017) assessed volumetric changes with optical scanning‐based digital technologies. Among them, four studies also assessed mucosal thickness (MT) changes with transgingival piercing methods (Hosseini et al, 2020; Huber et al, 2018; Papi et al, 2020; Thoma et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty‐one studies (Basler et al, 2018; Benic et al, 2017; Bittner et al, 2020; Canullo et al, 2018; Clementini et al, 2020; De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Eeckhout et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Friberg & Jemt, 2012; Hinze et al, 2018; Hosseini et al, 2020; Huber et al, 2018; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; Schneider et al, 2011; Thoma et al, 2020; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wittneben et al, 2016; Zeltner et al, 2017) reported generating 3D digital models from constructed dental casts obtained with different impression materials (including silicone, alginate, polyether, and polyvinyl siloxane) with the use of desktop 3D optical scanners (indirect technique). The other eleven studies (Bertl et al, 2017; Borges et al, 2020; Cabanes‐Gumbau et al, 2019; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Jiang et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019) had obtained the 3D digital models with the use of intra‐oral scanners (direct technique).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vol changes in mm 3 were reported in 10 studies (Borges et al, 2020; Cabanes‐Gumbau et al, 2019; Clementini et al, 2020; De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Friberg & Jemt, 2012; Papi et al, 2020; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wittneben et al, 2016). LD changes were assessed in 15 studies (Basler et al, 2018; Benic et al, 2017; Bittner et al, 2020; Clementini et al, 2020; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Hosseini et al, 2020; Jiang et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019), while the Δ D was analysed in 22 articles (Basler et al, 2018; Borges et al, 2020; Cabanes‐Gumbau et al, 2019; Canullo et al, 2018; Clementini et al, 2020; De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Eeckhout et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Friberg & Jemt, 2012; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Hinze et al, 2018; Huber et al, 2018; Parvini et al, 2020; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; Schneider et al, 2011; Thoma et al, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wei et al, 2019; Zeltner et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning‐based digital technologies

Tavelli

Barootchi

Majzoub

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo evaluate techniques for assessing soft tissue alterations at implant sites and compare the traditionally utilized methods to the newer three‐dimensional technologies emerging in the literature.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments.ResultsSeventy‐five articles were included the following: 30 used transgingival piercing alone, one utilized calliper, six with ultrasonography, six on cone‐beam computed tomography, and 32 utilized optical scanning and digital technologies. Optical scanning‐based digital technologies were the only approach that provided ‘volumetric changes,’ reported as volumetric variation in mm3, or the mean distance between the surfaces/mean thickness of the reconstructed volume. High variability in the digital analysis and definition of the region of interest was observed. All the other methods reported volume variation as linear dimensional changes at different apico‐coronal levels. No studies compared volumetric changes with different approaches.ConclusionsDespite the emergence of optical scanning‐based digital technologies for evaluating volumetric changes, a high degree of variation exists in the executed workflow, which renders the comparison of study results not feasible. Establishment of universal guidelines could allow for volumetric comparisons among different studies and treatments.

show abstract

“…This gives excellent versatility in CAD, but it can lead to difficulties in positioning that can be associated with possible errors—in scanning, in overlap in CAD, and, not least, in precision—during extraoral cementation of zirconia over titanium. It should also be noted that, in Morse taper screwless implants, the abutment is usually not removable once placed in the mouth (according to the one abutment—one time concept) [45]. This is positive because it allows the soft tissues an optimal healing on zirconia, avoiding the disruptive phenomena at the mucosa interface related to the repeated removal of the abutment [46]; yet it can create problems in cases of positioning errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Full-Digital Protocol (SCAN-PLAN-MAKE-DONE®) for the Design and Fabrication of Implant-Supported Monolithic Translucent Zirconia Crowns Cemented on Customized Hybrid Abutments: A Retrospective Clinical Study on 25 Patients

Mangano

Margiani

Admakin

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To present a novel, full-digital protocol for the design and fabrication of implant-supported monolithic translucent zirconia crowns cemented on customized hybrid abutments. Methods: The present retrospective clinical study was based on data from patients who had been treated with single Morse-taper connection implants (Exacone®, Leone Implants, Florence, Italy) and were prosthetically restored with monolithic translucent zirconia crowns, cemented on customized hybrid abutments. The full-digital protocol (SCAN-PLAN-MAKE-DONE®) consisted of 8 phases: (1) intraoral scan of the implant position with scanbody; (2) computer-assisted design (CAD) of the individual abutment (saved as “supplementary abutment design” in external folder) and temporary crown; (3) milling of the individual zirconia abutment and of the temporary polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crown, with extraoral cementation of the zirconia abutment on the relative titanium bonding base, to generate an individual hybrid abutment; (4) clinical application of the individual hybrid abutment and cementation of the temporary PMMA crown; (5) two months later, intraoral scan of the individual hybrid abutment in position; (6) CAD of the final crown with margin line design on the previously saved “supplementary abutment design”, superimposed on the second scan of the abutment in position; (7) milling of the final crown in monolithic translucent zirconia, sintering, and characterization; and (8) clinical application of the final crown. All patients were followed for a period of 1 year. The primary outcomes of this study were the marginal adaptation of the final crown (checked clinically and radiographically), the quality of occlusal and interproximal contact points at delivery, and the aesthetic integration; the secondary outcomes were the 1-year survival and success of the implant-supported restoration. An implant-supported restoration was considered successful in the absence of any biological or prosthetic complication, during the entire follow-up period. Results: In total, 25 patients (12 males, 13 females; 26–74 years of age; mean age 51.1 ± 13.3 years) who had been restored with 40 implant-supported monolithic translucent zirconia crowns were included in this study. At delivery, the marginal adaptation was perfect for all crowns. However, there were occlusal issues (2/40 crowns: 5%), interproximal issues (1/40 crowns: 2.5%), and aesthetic issues (1/40 crowns: 2.5%). The overall incidence of issues at delivery was therefore 10% (4/40 crowns). At 1 year, one implant failed; thus the survival of the restorations was 97.5% (39/40 crowns in function). Among the surviving implant-supported restorations, three experienced complications (one loss of connection between the hybrid abutment and the implant, one decementation of the zirconia abutment, and one decementation of the zirconia crown). The success of restorations amounted to 92.4%. Conclusions: The restoration of single Morse-taper connection implants with monolithic translucent zirconia crowns cemented on customized hybrid abutments via the novel SCAN-PLAN-MAKE-DONE® full-digital protocol seems to represent a reliable treatment option. However, further studies on a larger number of patients and dealing with different prosthetic restorations (such as implant-supported fixed partial prostheses) are needed to confirm the validity of this protocol.

show abstract

Marginal soft tissue stability around conical abutments inserted with the one abutment‐one time protocol after 5 years of prosthetic loading

Cited by 22 publications

References 32 publications

Influence of Implant Thread Morphology on Primary Stability: A Prospective Clinical Study

Influence of Implant Thread Morphology on Primary Stability: A Prospective Clinical Study

Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning‐based digital technologies

A Novel Full-Digital Protocol (SCAN-PLAN-MAKE-DONE®) for the Design and Fabrication of Implant-Supported Monolithic Translucent Zirconia Crowns Cemented on Customized Hybrid Abutments: A Retrospective Clinical Study on 25 Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About