Comparative Aesthetic Analysis Between Titanium and Ceramic Implants

University of Santiago de Compostela30 enrolled

Overview

Objective: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare ceramic and titanium implants with respect to the esthetic and clinical parameters, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Material and methods: Thirty patients received thirty implants (8-12 mm in length, 3.3 mm diameter and a tissue level design) to replace the absence of a single tooth in the anterior maxilla. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a ceramic or a titanium implant. Esthetic and clinical parameters and PROMs were evaluated 18 months after surgery.

The study was a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT), with a parallel design, comparing ceramic (test group) and titanium (control group) implants, for the replacement of a single-tooth in the anterior maxilla. All patients were randomized and assigned to each of the study groups through a computer-generated randomization. Surgical and restorative procedures In the test group, a Tissue Level Ceramic monotype implant was placed (Straumann PURE Ceramic implants®; Institut Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) and in the control group a Tissue Level SLA Titanium implant (Straumann Standard Plus Narrow Neck CrossFit®; Institut Straumann, Basel, Switzerland). The length of the implants was 8, 10 and 12 mm. The primary outcome was the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI). It consists of nine sections: mesiodistal dimension of the crown, position of the incisal edge of the crown, labial convexity of the crown, color and translucency of the crown, crown surface, position of the gingival margin of the peri-implant mucosa, position of the interdental papilla, contour of the vestibular mucosa and color and surface of the vestibular mucosa. These sections were compared with the adjacent and contralateral tooth as a reference and assigned the following score: 0, excellent; 1 or 2 satisfactory; 3 or 4 moderate; 5 or more bad.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Dental Implants

Interventions

Titanium and ceramic dental ImplantsDEVICE

Two types of implant placement and follow-up to compare the esthetic, clinical and radiographic parameters between them.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * Periodontal and systemically healthy patients \> 18 years of age, with good plaque control (\< 25%). * Patients with a missing tooth in the anterior maxilla (from 13 to 23) with the presence of adjacent natural dentition mesially and distally (single gap). A minimum of 4 months of healing after tooth extraction was required before implant insertion. * Presence of ≥ 2mm of keratinized tissue. * Simultaneous bone regeneration was allowed during surgery. Exclusion Criteria: * Intake any medication or presence of any systemic disease that could affect bone metabolism. * Pregnancy, or lactating women. * Active periodontal disease * Smoking \>10 cig/day

Locations (1)

Master Periodoncia

Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

The primary outcome was the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI).

It consists of nine sections: (i) mesiodistal dimension of the crown, (ii) position of the incisal edge of the crown, (iii) labial convexity of the crown, (iv) color and translucency of the crown, (v) crown surface, (vi) position of the gingival margin of the peri-implant mucosa, (vii) position of the interdental papilla, (viii) contour of the vestibular mucosa and (ix) color and surface of the vestibular mucosa. These sections were compared with the adjacent and contralateral tooth as a reference and assigned the following score: 0, excellent; 1 or 2 satisfactory; 3 or 4 moderate; 5 or more bad (Meijer et al., 2005).

Time frame: 36 months

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.