Primary stability and PES/WES evaluation for immediate implants in the aesthetic zone: a pilot clinical double-blind randomized study
Abstract The use of immediate implants in the aesthetic area is a technique widely used in modern implantology. The characteristics of the patient, the implant, and the surgical procedure used may influence the final results. The aim was to assess whether the implant design affects primary (P.S.) an...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/13d42007c4e44900b16d1520fec3ce26 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract The use of immediate implants in the aesthetic area is a technique widely used in modern implantology. The characteristics of the patient, the implant, and the surgical procedure used may influence the final results. The aim was to assess whether the implant design affects primary (P.S.) and secondary stability (S.S.), bone level (B.L.), and PES/WES evaluation. Twenty implants with two different designs (n = 10) were immediately placed and randomly located in the upper anterior maxilla with no grafting material. Implant-Stability-Quotient (ISQ), B.L., and Pink-Esthetic-Score/White-Esthetic-Score (PES/WES) were evaluated. Shapiro–Wilk normality test was performed to determine the sample normality, as the data did not follow a normal distribution, the Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test was applied (p < 0.05). ISQ was determined at placement (PS): control 59.1 (C.I.54.8–63.3); experimental 62.2(C.I.60.1–64.2) and three months after placement (SS): control 62.2.1 (C.I.53.3–71.0); experimental 67.2(C.I.65.8–68.5). The BL was measured at three months after placement: control 0.38 mm (C.I.− 0.06 to + 0.83); experimental 0.76 mm (C.I.0.33–1.19) and at 12 months post-loading: control 0.07 mm (C.I.− 0.50–0.65); experimental 0.90 mm (C.I.0.38–1.42). PES/WES values were evaluated for the control group: 15 (C.I.12.68–17.32), and for the experimental group 15.20 (C.I.11.99–18.41). No significant differences were shown between both implant designs. A good grade of osseointegration and primary/secondary stability was achieved, as well as proper maintenance of crestal bone and adequate PES/WES scores. The criteria for selection for the ideal patient for immediate implant placement is essential. ClinicalTrials Protocol ID: NCT04343833. |
|---|