* Background * There is a growing tendency to place a provisional restoration immediately following implant placement. Clinical advantages are shortening of treatment duration and soft tissue guiding during healing resulting in better esthetic outcomes. Provisional restorations can be made either chair-side or in the dental laboratory after implant placement. Nowadays, digital planning makes it possible to fabricate the provisional restoration before implant surgery. The advantage of this technique is that the treatment procedure of placement of the provisional restoration immediately after implant placement is much less time consuming for the patient and due to its machined polished character possibly beneficial for soft tissues. * Main research question The aim of this retrospective case series study, with full digital workflow, is to evaluate single tooth implant treatment after immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic region, with respect to registration of possible complications during the time of placement and evaluation of the prefabricated provisional registration and evaluation of clinical and radiographical performance and aesthetic outcome with the definitive restoration after at least 1 year in function. * Design (including population, confounders/outcomes) The study design is a retrospective, single-arm observational study for evaluation of 50 patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic region, which were treated with an implant-supported provisional and definitive restoration by means of a digital workflow. Outcomes: registration of possible complications during the time of placement and evaluation of the provisional registration and evaluation of clinical and radiographical performance and aesthetic outcome with the definitive restoration. * Expected results Satisfying results for patients and professionals (VAS-scores and PES/WES-scores).
BACKGROUND • Introduction and rationale There is a growing tendency to place a provisional restoration immediately following implant placement. Clinical advantages are shortening of treatment duration and soft tissue guiding during healing resulting in better esthetic outcomes (El Ghoul \& Chidiac, 2012). It was shown that good esthetic results can be achieved with immediate provisionalization of single-tooth implants placed immediately after failing tooth removal (Zuiderveld EG, Meijer HJA, Gareb B, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM, 2024; Donker VJJ, Raghoebar GM, Slagter KW, Hentenaar DFM, Vissink A, Meijer HJA, 2024). Popularity of immediate implant loading is related to evolving society factors, including more demanding patients and a wish for direct treatment (Huynh-Ba, Oates, \& Williams, 2018). Recent developments in the digital workflow in implant dentistry made treatment planning and fabrication of a provisional restoration before implant placement possible, thus making the treatment more predictable for the clinician and even further shortening the treatment duration. Until date, limited studies have been described investigating immediate provisionalization of single-tooth implants placed immediately after failing tooth removal in the esthetic maxillary zone using a provisional restoration fabricated before implant placement. • Research question The aim of this retrospective case series study, with full digital workflow, is to evaluate single tooth implant treatment after immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic region, with respect to registration of possible complications during the time of placement and evaluation of the prefabricated provisional registration and evaluation of clinical and radiographical performance and aesthetic outcome with the definitive restoration after at least 1 year in function.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
50
prefabricated provisional restoration
University Medical Center Groningen
Groningen, Provincie Groningen, Netherlands
Change in peri-implant marginal bone level
Comparison between peri-implant bone level at implant placement and follow-up time point in millimeters measured on intraoral radiographs
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Implant and restoration survival
Percentage of implants and restorations present at follow-up time point
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction measured on a Visual Analogue Scale. Minimum =0 (extremely dissatisfied); Maximum = 100 (extremely satisfied).
Time frame: 1 year
Plaque score
Plaque index from 0 to 3. Minimum = 0 (zero plaque visible); Maximum = 3 (abundant amount of plaque visible)
Time frame: 1 year
Gingival score
Health of peri-implant mucosa described by Gingival index from 0 to 3. Minimum = 0 (healthy mucosa); Maximum = 3 (very infected mucosa).
Time frame: 1 year
Pocket depth
Probing depth in the peri-implant sulcus in millimeters measured with a periodontal probe.
Time frame: 1 year
Bleeding score
Bleeding in peri-implant sulcus after probing measured with a Bleeding index from 0 to 3. Minimum = 0 (no bleeding after probing); Maximum = 3 (abundance amount of bleeding after probing).
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.