Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two‐piece dental implants supporting fixed reconstructions—Results at 5 years of loading

Abstract

Objectives Compare clinical outcomes of two types of dental implants with non‐matching implant–abutment junctions loaded with fixed implant‐borne reconstructions at 5 years of loading. Materials and methods In 64 patients, one of two implant systems (S1, S2) was randomly used to support fixed dental prostheses (FDP). At loading (TL), after 1 (T1), 3 (T3) and 5 years (T5), the implant and reconstruction survival, biological and technical complications, radiographic marginal bone levels, clinical outcomes were recorded. The implants of the groups S1 and S2 contained of two‐piece titanium implants with a non‐matching implant–abutment junction. Data were analyzed on the patient level (1 implant/patient) using the non‐parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Results Ninety‐seven implants were placed and loaded with fixed reconstructions in 64 patients. At T5, 29 S1 and 28 S2 implants were available for the patient‐level analysis. Two implants in group S1 had to be removed in the same patient due to severe peri‐implantitis, resulting in a survival rate of 96.1% on the implant level and 96.6% on the patient level. No implant in group S2 was lost. The technical complication rate on patient‐level amounted of 24.2% (S1) and of 6.5% (S2) (p > .05). Biological complications on patient‐level were observed in 15.2% (S1) and 16.1% (S2) (p > .05). From TL to T5, the medians of the mean marginal bone level changes wer a gain of 0.15 mm in group S1 and a loss of 0.14 mm in group S2 (p > .05). Conclusions and clinical implications Both implant systems revealed high survival rates and minimal changes of the marginal bone levels during 5 years. Few biological complications occurred in both groups. S1 revealed a high rate of technical complications. Therefore, both implant systems can be recommended for fixed reconstructions.

Implants sites with concomitant bone regeneration using a resorbable or non‐resorbable membrane result in stable marginal bone levels and similar profilometric outcomes over 5 years

“…Implants revealed higher PD values compared to contralateral teeth. This is in line with published data (Asgeirsson et al., 2019; Ioannidis et al., 2019), especially in aesthetic implant sites where implants are often being placed subcrestally in order to create the emergence profile and obtain pleasing esthetic outcomes. Interproximal bone levels exhibited to be stable over time with a loss of only 0.3 mm (RES) and 0.2 mm (N‐RES) over 5 years.…”

Clinical and patient-reported outcome of implant restorations with internal conical connection in daily dental practices: prospective observational multicenter trial with up to 7-year follow-up

“…This bone gain corresponds well with the randomized clinical trial from Donati et al [34], where 52% of the implants showed a bone gain over a 5year observation period. These results are also in accordance with the controlled clinical studies published by Messias et al [27] and Ioannidis et al [4] and by the clinical study of Wennström et al [35]. Additionally, the present results are consistent with the preliminary 1year results with the same implant system published by Moergel et al [17].…”

“…From the 122 implants restored, three implants (implant mobility and periimplantitis) were lost, resulting in a cumulative proportion survival rate of 96.6% (Kaplan-Meier). Thus, although the selection of study participants was less stringent, the survival rate of implants and their corresponding prosthetic components in daily dental practices was very similar compared with randomized clinical studies over 5 years like Messias et al [27], 96.6% with no difference between platform switching and platform matching abutments, or with the randomized controlled clinical study of Ioannidis et al [4] resulting in a survival rate of 96.1% of the implants. In a meta-analysis over 5 years performed by Jung et al [28] with more than 2000 patients, the survival of implants supporting single crowns was found to be 97.2%, and at 10 years 95.2%.…”

“…Many randomized controlled clinical trials have been published about dental implants. They have demonstrated long-term success in the rehabilitation of edentulous patients [1,2] as well as patients with single or multiple teeth replacements [3,4].…”

A Newly Created Meso-, Micro-, and Nano-Scale Rough Titanium Surface Promotes Bone-Implant Integration

“…Endosseous implants have become an important treatment modality in medicine and dentistry [1][2][3]. In particular, orthopedic and dental implants such as plates, screws, and joint reconstructive prostheses are commonly used in the treatment of bone fractures, osteoarthritis, bone defects after tumor resection, and other bone and joint disorders and pathogeneses [4][5][6][7][8].…”