Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a two-piece ceramic implant: one year results from a prospective clinical trial

• Published in: Clinical oral investigations 2024-06, Vol.28 (7), p.380, Article 380
• Main Authors: da Silva, Alexandre Marques Paes, Horta dos Santos, Francisco Augusto, Mota, Rodrigo Franco, Teixeira, Mayla Kezy Silva, Telles, Daniel Moraes, Lourenço, Eduardo José Veras
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging; Bone density; Bone implants; Bone loss; Ceramics - chemistry; Clinical outcomes; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentistry; Esthetics, Dental; Female; Humans; Male; Medicine; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Radiography; Statistical analysis; Survival; Survival analysis; Titanium; Tooth Socket - diagnostic imaging; Tooth Socket - surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1436-3771; 1432-6981; 1436-3771
• DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05783-3

Objective To describe the clinical and radiographic performance and survival rate of a new two-piece ceramic implant system after at least 12 months of follow-up. Materials and methods Sixty-five implants were placed and followed up for at least 12 months (12.3  ±  1.5), in 50 patients. The implants were installed both in fresh extraction sockets and in healed sites and received provisional restoration when the clinical insertion torque was greater than 35Ncm. The primary results describe the survival rate of these implants. Clinical performance was evaluated through the evaluation of the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the degree of satisfaction of the patients. Bone loss was measured through radiographic measurements of the marginal bone loss in the mesial (MBLM) and distal (MBLD) sites. Results The survival rate was 98.5%. The average MBLM was 0.24 mm (± 0.53) and the MBLD was 0.27 mm (± 0.57). A statistical difference was observed only when comparing immediate implants with delayed ones (MBLM – p  = 0.046 and MBLD - p  = 0.028) and when they received immediate provisionalization or not (MBLM - p  = 0.009 and MBLD - p  = 0.040). The PES before the intervention (T0) was 13.4 (± 0.8) and the PES at T2 (12-month follow-up) was 12.9 (± 1.5) ( p  = 1.14). Conclusion The new two-piece ceramic implant used in the present study showed predictable and reliable results, similar to those found with titanium implants after one year of follow-up. Clinical relevance These implants can be used as an alternative to titanium implants in terms of the marginal bone loss and the degree of patient satisfaction.