Esthetic and clinical outcomes after immediate placement and restoration: Comparison of two implant systems in the anterior maxilla—A cross‐sectional study

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2023-04, Vol.25 (2), p.252-260
• Main Authors: Parvini, Puria, Trimpou, Georgia, Begic, Amira, Cafferata, Emilio A., Petsos, Hari, Müller, Katharina Melissa, Schwarz, Frank, Eickholz, Peter, Obreja, Karina
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aesthetics; Bleeding; Bone loss; Cross-Sectional Studies; dental esthetics; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; dental prosthesis; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; immediate dental implant loading; Immediate Dental Implant Loading - methods; implant‐supported; Maxilla; Maxilla - surgery; Mechanical loading; Mucosa; Mucositis; Plaque index; single‐tooth; Teeth; Transplants & implants; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.13158

Aim To assess the esthetic and clinical performance of a novel self‐tapping implant system for single‐tooth restorations in the esthetic zone after immediate placement and provisionalization. Materials and Methods This cross‐sectional study included 52 patients contributing a total of 52 immediately placed and restored implants with ≥12 months after functional loading, comparing two different implant systems: Straumann® BLX (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland; 25 patients) and Ankylos® (Dentsply Sirona, Hanau, Germany; 27 patients). As the primary outcome measure, peri‐implant tissue esthetics were assessed by means of pink esthetics score (PES) rated by three independent clinicians. Moreover, as secondary outcome measures, the peri‐implant tissue health was assessed by means of bleeding on probing, probing depth, and suppuration. Apart from that, the modified plaque index, keratinized mucosa width, and the presence of mucosal recessions were also assessed. When clinical signs suggested the possibility of peri‐implantitis, radiographs were indicated to assess progressive bone loss. Results The mean PES ratings were 12.10 ± 1.10 for Ankylos versus 11.2 ± 1.86 for BLX, both achieving good esthetic results without significant differences (p = 0.143). There were no differences among most clinical parameters (plaque, bleeding on probing, probing depth, peri‐implant mucosal recession), although peri‐implant mucositis was present in one‐third of the cases. The inter‐rater agreement on esthetics was not significant (p < 0.250). Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that the use of either BLX or Ankylos implant systems was associated to comparable peri‐implant health and good pink esthetic outcomes during immediate implantation and restoration protocols, for at least 12 months.