Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Esthetic and Patient-Centered Outcomes of Single Implants: A Retrospective Study
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6186-4804
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3460-3374
Clinic for Prosthodontics, Centre of Dental Specialist Care, Karlskrona, Sweden.
Clinic for Prosthodontics, Centre of Dental Specialist Care, Malmö, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, ISSN 0882-2786, E-ISSN 1942-4434, Vol. 32, no 5, p. 1065-1073Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: The aims of this clinical study were to retrospectively evaluate implant survival, patient satisfaction, and radiographic, clinical, and esthetic outcomes following single-implant treatment. Materials and Methods: Eighty-seven patients, with a total of 126 implants (XiVE S, Dentsply Implants), who received single implant-retained crowns between 2004 and 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. Implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBL), changes in implant/mesial tooth vertical relationship, pink esthetic score (PES), white esthetic score (WES), patient assessment of the esthetics (visual analog scale), and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) were evaluated. Results: Altogether, 59 patients with a total of 85 implants attended a final clinical and radiographic follow-up examination. The mean ages of males and females at implant placement were 19.78 and 22.58 years, respectively. The mean total follow-up time from the implant surgical date was 7.51 years. The 5-year implant clinical survival rate (CSR) was 98.4% (95% CI: 96.3%–100%), and crown CSR was 91.8% (95% CI: 86.3%–97.3%). The overall mean change in MBL was –0.19 mm. No significant differences were found between the different implant diameters (3.0, 3.4, and 3.8 mm) with regard to change in MBL. Mean increase in implant infraposition was 0.13 mm. With regard to esthetics, mean initial and final total PES were 9.61 and 11.49, respectively (P < .001). The mean WES was 6.48 at follow-up. Patients’ mean assessment of soft tissue esthetics and implant-supported crown appearance were 73.5 and 82.1 (maximum score 100). At the follow-up examination, the additive OHIP-14 score was 16.11. Conclusion: This retrospective study of XiVE S implants found excellent survival rates and showed good clinical outcomes concerning patient-centered findings, esthetics, and marginal bone preservation. In context, it is important to stress that this study consisted of mostly young patients with agenesis who were treated by experienced clinicians.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Quintessence , 2017. Vol. 32, no 5, p. 1065-1073
Keywords [en]
Agenesis, Esthetics, Infraposition, Marginal Bone Level, Patient satisfaction, Patient-centered outcome, PES, Pink Esthetic Score, Single Implant, WES, White Esthetic Score
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-15411DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5495ISI: 000413190400015PubMedID: 28334057Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85029602934Local ID: 22674OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-15411DiVA, id: diva2:1418932
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2024-06-17Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. On the Clinical Outcome of Different Single Implant Treatment Modalities
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On the Clinical Outcome of Different Single Implant Treatment Modalities
2020 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Today there are several treatment techniques available to replace a missing tooth. Since the beginning of the 1990s, it has become increasingly common to treat individual tooth loss with dental implants. Important patient factors are survival, success, functionality, aesthetics, oral health and quality of life.

The range of indications and possibilities for implant treatment has broadened compared to the originally proposed treatment indications. A variety of methods, components and materials are available today. Improvements of the implant surface have led to shorter healing periods, which has affected the overall treatment time. Methods for computer-assisted implant planning and surgical guides have been developed to improve treatment planning. Several techniques are involved in the manufacturing of implant-supported single crowns, from the traditional plaster models, wax, casting and porcelain veneering to 3D scanning, computer aided design and manufacturing. It is important that all these treatment modalities are evaluated in a systematic and scientific way to ensure that the treatment given is the best one possible according to the individual conditions that exist.

The general aim of this project was to evaluate the treatment outcome between different treatment modalities for single dental implants. Study I aims to retrospectively evaluate implant survival. Patient reported outcome measures, marginal bone loss (MBL), clinical and esthetic outcomes following conventional single implant treatment. The aim of study II, a prospective randomized clinical study, was to compare the overall treatment outcome following immediate loading (IL) and delayed loading (DL) of single implants. In study III the aim was to in a vitro setting evaluate the deviation in final dental implant position after the use of surgical guides fabricated from two different desktop 3D printers using a digital workflow. For study IV the aim was to, in a non-randomized study, compare clinical and aesthetic outcomes between immediately loaded single implants placed with and without a fully guided-surgery procedure (DIL). In study I a total of 85 implants were examined after a mean follow-up time of 7.51 years. The 5-year implant survival rate was98.4% (95% CI: 96.3% - 100%), with a crown survival rate of91.8% (95% CI: 86.3%-97.3%). Overall mean MBL was -0.13 mm. Final and initial total Pink esthetic score (PES) were 9.61 and 11.49 (P<.001) Mean White esthetic score (WES) was 6.48 at final follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for soft tissue and implant-supported crown aesthetics were 73.5 and 82.1 (maximum score 100). A oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) 14 score of 16.11 was observed at the final follow-up. Study II and IV found implant survival rates of 100%, 96% and 90.5 % for IL, DL and DIL, respectively, after 1-year. No statistically significant differences were found for MBL, PES, WES and OHIP-14after 1-year. Statistically significant lower papilla index scores were found for the IL. Overall statistically significant improvement inPES, WES and OHIP-14 were found over time. In the DIL group a moderate correlation between aesthetics and deviation in fixture position was found. For Study III a statistically significant difference between stereolithography and direct light processing (DLP) was found fordeviation at entry point (P = .023) and the vertical implant position(P = .009). Overall lower deviations were found for the guides from the DLP printer, with the exception of deviation in horizontal implant position.The results from these studies suggest that good clinical results can be achieved with different treatment modalities for single implants. Positive advantages with immediate loading and guided surgery is primarily seen in the early faces of the treatment procedure only. Care needs to be exerted with technically complicated treatment procedures as the effect on implant survival should not be underestimated. Further studies have to be performed to evaluate guided surgery and immediate loading to identify possible factors effecting survival.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Malmö: Malmö universitet, 2020. p. 122
Series
Doctoral Dissertation in Odontology
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-18188 (URN)10.24834/isbn.9789178770892 (DOI)978-91-7877-088-5 (ISBN)978-91-7877-089-2 (ISBN)
Public defence
2020-09-18, D131, Nordenskiöldsg. 10, Malmö, 09:15
Opponent
Available from: 2020-09-07 Created: 2020-09-07 Last updated: 2022-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Gjelvold, BjörnChrcanovic, BrunoAlbrektsson, TomasWennerberg, Ann

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Gjelvold, BjörnChrcanovic, BrunoAlbrektsson, TomasWennerberg, Ann
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 104 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf