Esposito, M; Salina, S; Rigotti, F; Mazzarini, C; Longhin, D; Grigoletto, M; Buti, J; ... Gualini, F; + view all Esposito, M; Salina, S; Rigotti, F; Mazzarini, C; Longhin, D; Grigoletto, M; Buti, J; Sbricoli, L; Gualini, F; - view fewer (2020) Multicentre Withinperson Randomised Controlled Trial of 0.5 Mm Versus 1.5 Mm Subcrestal Placement of Dental Implants With Internal Conical Connection: Five-year Post-loading Results. Clinical Trials in Dentistry , 02 (03) , Article 77. 10.36130/ctd.04.2020.06.

Preview

Text Esposito_2020;02(3)77-89.pdf - Accepted Version Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

PURPOSE. To assess whether there are any clinical benefits to placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty partially edentulous patients at six centres requiring two single implant-supported crowns had both sites randomly allocated according to a split-mouth design to either 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestal implant placement; implants in aesthetic areas were submerged for 3 months while those in non-aesthetic areas were not. Provisional acrylic crowns were fitted and replaced with definitive metal-ceramic crowns after 2 months. Patients were followed up to 5 years after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient prefe-rence, recorded by blinded assessors. RESULTS. Two patients dropped out. There were no statistically significant differences in failure rate (out of 58 patients, four implants failed in the 0.5 mm group versus one in the 1.5 mm group; difference =-5.17%; 95% CI-10.87% to 0.53%; P = 0.250) or complications (out of 58 patients eight complications occurred in eight patients from the 0.5 mm group versus five complications in five patients from the 1.5 mm group (difference =-5.17%; 95% CI-14.01% to 3.67%; P = 0.453) between groups. At 5 years after loading, the mean pink aesthetic scores were 10.89 ± 2.30 and 10.79 ± 2.41 in the 0.5 and 1.5 mm groups, respecti-vely, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = 0.943). Patients from the 0.5 mm group lost on average 0.53 ± 1.43 mm peri-implant marginal bone, and those in the 1.5 mm group lost 0.31 ± 0.98 mm, a statistically significant difference (0.26 mm; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47; P = 0.016). Patients did not prefer any depth of implant placement over the other. There were no differences in outcomes between centres. CONCLUSIONS. No clinically appreciable differences were noted when placing implants surrounded by at least 1 mm of bone 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally. Clinicians are therefore free to choose which strategy they prefer.

Download activity - last month

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item