A prospective study on ultra‐wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement. (25th September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hattingh, André; Hommez, Geert; De Bruyn, Hugo; Huyghe, Marie; Vandeweghe, Stefan
• Is Part Of: Clinical implant dentistry and related research. Volume 20:Number 6(2018)
• Page Start: 1009
• Page End: 1015
• Publication Date: 2018-09-25
• Subjects: dental implant -- immediate placement -- ultra‐wide; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dental Implantation -- Periodicals; Dental Implants -- Periodicals; 617.693
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12666
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1523-0899

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Although wide diameter implants are well documented, little is known about ultra‐wide diameter implants (>6 mm). This study evaluates the clinical outcome of ultra‐wide diameter implants, placed in molar extraction sockets. Materials and Methods: Ultra‐wide diameter implants (7‐9 mm) were placed immediately after molar extraction in a 1‐stage protocol, without raising a flap or using any bone grafts. After 4 months, the implant was loaded with a single screw‐retained crown. Bone loss was evaluated using peri‐apical radiographs. Plaque and bleeding were recorded. Crown and papilla dimensions were measured and compared with the contra‐lateral tooth. Results: Fifty‐one patients (36 male and 15 female), mean ages 61 years old, were treated with 26 implants in the maxilla and 25 implants in the mandible. The majority had a thick (#19) or medium (#31) biotype. After a mean‐follow‐up period of 23 months, the mean bone level was located 1.16 mm apical of the implant‐abutment junction (SD 0.42, range 0.00‐2.45) while the actual bone remodeling associated with socket healing resulted in a mean coronal movement of the bone level of 0.15 mm. The mean insertion torque was 116 Ncm (SD 53, range 10‐250). There were no differences in papilla height ( P = .55), crown length ( P = .32), zenith ( P = .84), and bucco‐palatal dimensions ( P = .38). There was a significant difference in the mesio‐distal dimension ( P = .01). Mean probing depth was 2.59 mm at the implant and 2.23 mm at the contra‐lateral tooth ( P = .001). There was significantly more plaque at the tooth compared to the implant ( P = .01), but there was no significant difference in terms of bleeding on probing ( P = .08). Patient satisfaction was high with 72.5% of the patients experiencing no problems at all. Conclusions: Ultra‐wide diameter implants have a predictable outcome, demonstrating very little bone loss. Papilla and crown dimensions were comparable to the contra‐lateral natural tooth.