Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Immediate versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary lateral incisor: a 3-year randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the bone loss pattern and soft tissue healing of immediately versus one-stage loaded 3.0-mm-diameter implants in cases involving a single missing lateral maxillary incisor.

METHODS: Sixty patients with a missing lateral incisor in the maxilla were randomized to one of the treatments: 30 patients in the immediate-restoration group and 30 patients in the one-stage group. All implants were placed in healed sites and had to be inserted with a torque >25 Ncm. The implants in the immediate-restoration group were fitted with a non-occluding temporary crown on the day of surgery. Both groups received a full occluding final crown 6 months after surgery. Mean marginal bone loss, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were assessed at 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up examinations by a masked examiner.

RESULTS: Sixty 3.0-mm-diameter implants were placed between July 2003 and February 2006; 27 (45.0%) were in men, and 33 (55.0%) were in women. All implants osseointegrated and were clinically stable at the 6-month follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed for bleeding or plaque index. No implant fractures occurred. At the 36-month follow-up, the accumulated mean marginal bone loss and probing depth were 0.85 +/- 0.71 mm and 1.91 +/- 0.59 mm, respectively, for the immediate-loading group (n = 30) and 0.75 +/- 0.63 mm and 2.27 +/- 0.81 mm, respectively, for the one-stage group (n = 30). There was no statistically significant difference (P >0.05) for the tested outcome measures between the two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS: In the rehabilitation of a single missing lateral maxillary incisor, no statistically significant difference was assessed between immediately and one-stage restored small-diameter implants with regard to implant survival, mean marginal bone loss, and probing depth. Three-millimeter-diameter implants proved to be a predictable treatment option in our test and control groups if a strict clinical protocol was followed.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app