Immediate Loading of Implant-Supported Single Crowns after Conventional and Ultrasonic Implant Site Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
- PMID: 30186865
- PMCID: PMC6112219
- DOI: 10.1155/2018/6817154
Immediate Loading of Implant-Supported Single Crowns after Conventional and Ultrasonic Implant Site Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Abstract
Aim: To compare implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of immediately loaded single implants inserted by using ultrasonic implant site preparation (UISP) (test) and conventional rotary instrumentation (control).
Methods: Two single implants were inserted for each patient: after randomization, test site was prepared by using an ultrasonic device (Piezosurgery Touch, Mectron, Italy) and control site was prepared by using the drills of the selected implant system (Premium AZT, Sweden & Martina, Italy), until reaching a final diameter of 3 mm in both groups. Identical implants (3.8x11.5 mm) were inserted in all sites at crestal level. Impressions were taken and screwed resin single crowns with platform-switched provisional abutments were delivered with 48 hours. Periapical radiographs were taken at provisional crown insertion (T0), 6 months (T1) and one year (T2) after prosthetic loading to measure MBL. All data were tested for normality and subsequently analyzed by paired samples t-test and forward multiple linear regression.
Results: Forty-eight patients were treated in six centers with the insertion of ninety-six implants (48 test; 48 control). Four implants in four patients failed within the first six months of healing (two in test group; two in control group; no difference between groups). Forty patients (age 60.1±10.7 years; 22 female, 18 male) were included in the final analysis. Mean MBL after six months of loading was 1.39±1.03 mm in the test group and 1.42±1.16 mm in the control group (p>0.05) and after one year was 1.92±1.14 mm and 2.14±1.55 mm in test and control, respectively (p>0.05).
Conclusions: No differences in survival rate and MBL were demonstrated between UISP and conventional site preparation with rotary instruments in immediately loaded dental implants: UISP, with its characteristics of enhanced surgical control and safety in proximity of delicate structures, may be used as a reliable alternative to the traditional drilling systems.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Immediate loading of post-extractive versus delayed placed single implants in the anterior maxilla: outcome of a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial 1-year after loading.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015 Winter;8(4):347-58. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015. PMID: 26669545 Clinical Trial.
-
Immediate non-occlusal loading of immediate post-extractive versus delayed placement of single implants in preserved sockets of the anterior maxilla: 1-year post-loading outcome of a randomised controlled trial.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015 Winter;8(4):361-72. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015. PMID: 26669546 Clinical Trial.
-
Immediate, early (3 weeks) and conventional loading (4 months) of single implants: Preliminary data at 1 year after loading from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015 Summer;8(2):115-26. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015. PMID: 26021223 Clinical Trial.
-
Do repeated changes of abutments have any influence on the stability of peri-implant tissues? Four-month post-loading preliminary results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015 Summer;8(2):129-40. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015. PMID: 26021224 Clinical Trial.
-
Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Apr;20(2):261-270. doi: 10.1111/cid.12555. Epub 2017 Nov 16. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018. PMID: 29148161 Review.
Cited by
-
Stability and marginal bone loss in implants placed using piezoelectric osteotomy versus conventional drilling: systematic review and meta-analysis.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2021 Mar 1;26(2):e226-e237. doi: 10.4317/medoral.24146. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2021. PMID: 33247573 Free PMC article.
-
Digital vs. Freehand Anterior Single-Tooth Implant Restoration.Biomed Res Int. 2020 Oct 22;2020:4012127. doi: 10.1155/2020/4012127. eCollection 2020. Biomed Res Int. 2020. PMID: 33150174 Free PMC article.
-
Changes in implant stability using different site preparation techniques: Osseodensification drills versus piezoelectric surgery. A multi-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023 Feb;25(1):133-140. doi: 10.1111/cid.13140. Epub 2022 Oct 3. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023. PMID: 36190150 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Evaluation of implant site preparation with piezosurgery versus conventional drills in terms of operation time, implant stability and bone density (randomized controlled clinical trial- split mouth design).BMC Oral Health. 2022 Dec 3;22(1):567. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02613-4. BMC Oral Health. 2022. PMID: 36463145 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
The applications of ultrasound, and ultrasonography in dentistry: a scoping review of the literature.Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Mar;26(3):2299-2316. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04340-6. Epub 2022 Jan 14. Clin Oral Investig. 2022. PMID: 35028733 Review.
References
-
- Weber H.-P., Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient? The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2007;22:140–172. - PubMed
-
- Lewis S. G., Beumer J., Perri G. R., Hornburg W. P. Single tooth implant supported restorations. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 1988;3(1):25–30. - PubMed
-
- Jemt T., Lekholm U., Gröndahl K. 3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brånemark. The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 1990;10(5):340–349. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous