Back

Volume 35 , Issue 2
March/April 2015
Pages 149-159

Esthetic Outcomes in Relation to Implant-Abutment Interface Design Following a Standardized Treatment Protocol in a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial— A Cohort of 12 Cases at 1-Year Follow-up

Michael K. McGuire, DDS/E. Todd Scheyer,DDS, MS/Daniel K. Ho DMD,DMSc, MSc/Clark M. Stanford, DDS, PhD/Jocelyne S. Feine, DDS, MS, HDR/Lyndon F. Cooper, DDS, PhD

PMID: 25738335
DOI: 10.11607/prd.2341

The design of an implant-abutment interface may have an impact on the peri-implant soft tissue esthetics. In an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 141 participants, the authors evaluated the peri-implant tissue responses around three different implant-abutment interface designs used to replace single teeth in the esthetic zone. The aim of this report is to describe the treatment protocol utilized in this ongoing RCT by (1) demonstrating in detail a clinical case treated under this protocol and (2) reporting peri-implant soft tissue responses in a cohort of 12 representative cases from the RCT at 1-year follow-up. Male and female adults requiring single implants in the anterior maxilla were enrolled in the RCT according to the study protocol. Five months following any required extraction and/or socket bone grafting/ridge augmentation, one of the following three implant-abutment interfaces was placed and immediately provisionalized: (1) conical interface (CI; OsseoSpeed, Dentsply Implants), n = 4; (2) flat-to-flat interface (FI; NobelSpeedy Replace, Nobel Biocare), n = 4; or (3) platform-switch interface (PS; NanoTite Certain Prevail, Biomet 3i), n = 4. Twelve weeks later, definitive crowns were delivered. Throughout the treatment, peri-implant buccal gingival zenith height and mesial/distal papilla height were measured on stereotactic device photographs, and pink esthetic scores (PES) were determined. The demographics of the participants in each of the three implant-abutment interface groups were very similar. All 12 study sites had ideal ridge form with a minimum width of 5.5 mm following implant site development performed according to the described treatment protocol. Using this treatment protocol for single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla, the clinicians were able to obtain esthetic peri-implant soft tissue outcomes with all three types of implant-abutment interface designs at 1-year follow-up as shown by the Canfield data and PES. The proposed treatment protocol for single-tooth replacement in the esthetic zone provides a reliable method to obtain and assess the esthetic outcome as a function of implant-abutment interface design and is now in its fifth year of follow-up.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.