Unlock Key Implant..

8/3/2019 Unlock Key Implant..

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unlock-key-implant 1/28

This chapter is an edited version of the manuscript: Den Hartog, L., Huddleston Slater J.J., Vissink,

A., Meijer, H.J., Raghoebar, G.M. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-

tooth implants in the aesthetic zone. A systematic review to survival, bone level, soft tissue, aesthetics

and patient satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2008; 35: 1073 - 1086

2.

Treatment outcome of

immediate, early and

conventional single-tooth

implants in the aesthetic

zone

A systematic review to survival, bone level,

soft tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction

Y S T

O O L S D





S y s t e m a t i c r e v i e w

2

1515

IntroductIon

The application of dental implants for single-tooth replacements has evolved into

a viable prosthodontic alternative to conventional xed bridgework, resin-bonded

restorations or removable partial dentures. Long-term studies have reported ex-

cellent implant survival rates when applied for single-tooth replacements (Schel-ler et al. 1998, Romeo et al. 2002). Psychological benets and tooth structure

conservation adjacent to the tooth to be replaced, are among the advantages of

implant supported restorations.

In the anterior zone, the success of single-tooth implant therapy is not only

determined by high survival rates, but even more by the (long-term) quality of

survival, dictated by a mixture of several factors. Preferably, the appearance of

the peri-implant soft tissue should be in harmony with the mucosa around the

adjacent teeth and the implant crown should be in balance with the neighbouring

dentition (Meijer et al. 2005). Various implant treatment strategies have been pro-posed for the accomplishment of optimal aesthetics. These include approaches to

rehabilitate the underlying bone structures by augmentation procedures with au-

tologous bone and/or bone substitutes (Weber et al. 1997, Jensen et al. 2006, Pelo

et al. 2007), techniques to manipulate and enhance the architecture of the peri-

implant soft tissue (Zetu & Wang 2005, Esposito et al. 2007) and methods for al-

veolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction (Lekovic et al. 1997, Irinakis &

Tabesh 2007). Furthermore, implants and abutments with specic congurations

have been introduced to sustain the hard and soft tissue (Wohrle 2003, Morton et

al. 2004, Lazzara & Porter 2006, Maeda et al. 2007, Noelken et al. 2007) together

with provisionalization techniques to restore the soft tissue contour (Jemt 1999,

Al-Harbi & Edgin 2007), and the introduction of ceramic customized abutments

and ceramic implant crowns (Canullo 2007, Schneider 2008).

Traditionally, dental implants were placed in healed extraction sites according

to a two-stage surgical procedure and an undisturbed load-free period of three

to six months. In contemporary implantology, however, installation of implants

in fresh extraction sockets and reducing the load-free period by immediate re-

storing implants after insertion have gained attention. Besides shortening of to-

tal treatment time, fewer surgical interventions and eliminating the need for a

temporary prosthesis, these immediate approaches might lead to a reduction of

peri-implant crestal bone loss and a better soft tissue healing thus possibly im-

proving the aesthetics (Esposito et al. 2006, Glauser et al. 2006, Harvey 2007).

On the other hand, there are potential risk factors involved with these techniques

such as enhanced possibility of infection, mismatch between socket wall and im-

plant leading to gap creation and induction of brous tissue formation around

the bone-implant interface caused by implant micromovement during eventful

wound healing (Gapski et al. 2003, Esposito et al. 2006). These risk factors may

Y S T

O O L S D






2

1717

for inclusion. No time restrictions were implemented. Language was restricted to

papers published in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch.

Type of participants

Patients who were treated with an implant-retained single-tooth replacement in theaesthetic zone neighbored with natural teeth, could be included. The aesthetic zone

was dened as the region in the maxilla or mandible, ranging from second premo-

lar to second premolar (teeth 15-25 and teeth 35-45).

Types of intervention

immediate implant placement: dened as implant placement immediately fol--

lowing extraction of a tooth;

early implant placement: dened as installation of the implant 4 to 8 weeks-

after extraction;conventional implant placement: implant placement ≥ 8 weeks post-extrac--

tion;

immediate loading: application of a load by means of a restoration within 48-

hours of implant placement;

early loading: application of a load by means of a restoration after 48 hours but-

less than 3 months after implant placement;

conventional loading: application of a load by means of a restoration ≥ 3-

months after implant placement (Laney 2007).

For studies to be eligible in this review, they had to evaluate endosseous root-form

dental implants with a follow-up of at least 1 year after placement of the implant

crown.

Types of outcome measures

implant survival, dened as presence of the implant at time of follow-up ex--

aminations;

changes in marginal peri-implant bone level assessed on radiographs;-

aesthetics evaluated by dental professionals;-

aspects of the peri-implant structures, i.e. level of marginal gingiva, papilla in--

dex (Jemt 1997), probing pocket depth, presence of plaque, bleeding on prob-

ing;

patient satisfaction including aesthetics;-

biological and technical complications.-

Search Strategy

For this review, a thorough search of the literature was conducted in databases

of MEDLINE (1950-2008 (via PUBMED) and EMBASE (1966 – 2008). The search

Y S T

O O L S D






2

1919

Table 2. Quality assessment of case series.

Item + - ?

1. Are the characteristics of the study group clearly described?

2. Is there a high risk of selection bias? Are the inclusion andexclusion criteria clearly described?

3. Is the intervention clearly described? Are all patients treatedaccording to the same intervention?

4. Are the outcomes clearly described? Are adequate methodsused to assess the outcome?

5. Is blinding used to assess the outcome?

6. Is there a sufcient follow-up?

7. Can selective loss-to follow-up sufciently be excluded?

8. Are the most important confounders or prognostic factorsidentied and are these taken into consideration with respect tothe study design and analysis?

Five or more plusses = methodologically acceptable.

Statistical analysis

With respect to the quality assessment, agreement between both reviewers was

calculated using Cohen’s kappa (κ) statistics.

For the meta-analysis the statistical software package “Meta-analysis” was

used (Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2.2, Biostat, Englewood NJ (2005),

www.meta-analysis.com). For the calculation of the overall effects for the included

studies, weighted rates together with random effects models were used. Stra-

tication procedures were applied for follow-up time and type of intervention.

Within each stratum, heterogeneity between included studies was checked by

human eyeball criteria.

results

Description of studies

The MEDLINE search provided 610 hits, the EMBASE search 23 hits and the CEN-

TRAL search 27 hits. After scanning of titles and abstracts, 86 articles were select-

ed and screened as full text articles. Reference-checking of relevant reviews and

included studies revealed one additional article (Hall et al. 2006). However, this

report showed to be a shortened version of a later publication (Hall et al. 2007)

and did not contain any new information. A number of 41 studies did not satisfy

Y S T

O O L S D






2

2121

The κ-value for inter-assessor agreement on the methodological quality was 0.89.

Disagreements were generally caused by slight differences in interpretation and

were easily resolved in a consensus meeting. Finally, 19 publications remained for

data extraction. Figure 1 outlines the algorithm of the study selection procedure.

Of the included studies, 5 were RCTs, 2 were clinical trials and 12 were case series.Six publications presented outcomes of the same patient population, but differed

in follow-up (Palmer et al. 1997, 2000, Cooper et al. 2001, 2007, Jemt & Lekholm

2003, 2005) and results of one study group were reported in two different publi-

cations addressing different topics (Schropp et al. 2005a, 2005b).

Identied articles- MEDLINE search: n = 610- EMASE search: n = 23- CENTRAL search: n = 27

Included for full text analysisn = 86

Included for methodological appraisaln = 26

Included for data analysisn = 19

Excluded articles• Improper study design• Non-topic related• No abstract available• Follow-up < 1 year

Excluded articles• Required data not presented

• Improper study design• Follow-up < 1 year

Excluded articlesGrunder 2000; Groisman et al., 2003;Lorenzoni et al., 2003; Locante et al.,2004; Henriksson et al., 2004; Ferraraet al. , 2006; Barone et al., 2006

Most of the studies only evaluated maxillary implants, but three studies did

also include implants placed in the mandible (38 implants in total) (Schropp et

al. 2005a, Schropp et al. 2005b, Romeo et al. 2008). Furthermore, implants were

installed mostly in completely healed extraction sockets or early after extraction

(10 days to 4 weeks) and subsequently were restored according to immediate,

early (1 to 3 weeks after implant placement) or conventional loading protocols.

Restorations that were seated immediate or early after implant placement, were

Figure 1. Algorithm of study selection procedure.

Y S T

O O L S D





2323 ( C o n t i n u e d )

I n t e r v e n t i o n

D e s i g n

N o . o f

p a t i e n t s /

i m p l a n t s

I m p l a n t

s y s t e m

R e a s o n ( s ) f o r t o o t h

l o s s ( n o . )

F o l l o w -

u p p e r i o d

( y r s )

N o . o f

i m p l a n t

d r o p -

o u t s * *

S u r v i

v a l

r a t e ( % )

C h a n g e i n m a r -

g i n a l b o n e l e v e l

± S D ( m m )

0 7

I m m e d i a t e l o a d i n g v s

c o n v e n t i o n a l l o a d i n g

R C T

T C

1 4 / 1 4

1 4 / 1 4

S o u t h

e r n

I m p l a n t s

N R

1

1 2

9 3 1 0 0

- 0 . 6 3 ± 1 . 0 0

¶

- 0 . 7

8 ± 1 . 0 1

¶

n 2 0 0 0

I m m e d i a t e l o a d i n g v s

c o n v e n t i o n a l l o a d i n g

C T

T C

1 4 / 1 4

8 / 8

B r å n e m a r k

N R

1 . 5

2 0

8 5 . 7

1 0 0

- 0 . 1 4 ± 0 . 3

6 ¶

- 0 . 0 7 ± 0 . 7 9

¶

2 0 0 1

E a r l y l o a d i n g

C S

4 8 / 5 4

A s t r a T e c h

N R

1

3

9 4 . 4

- 0 . 4 ± N R §

2 0 0 7


C S

4 8 / 5 4

A s t r a T e c h

N R

3

1 1

9 4 . 4

- 0 . 4 2 ± 0 . 5 9

§

n 2 0 0 2


C S

8 / 8

I T

I

N R

5

0

1 0 0

+ 0 . 5 3 ± N R §

r t 2 0 0 7

C o n v e n t i o n a l

R C T

9 3 / 9 3

I T

I

N R

1

2

9 7 . 8

N R

0 3


C S

1 0 / 1 0

B r å n e m a r k

T r a u m a ( 1 0 )

3

1

1 0 0

- 0 . 3 ± 0 . 3

6 ¶

0 5


C S

1 0 / 1 0

B r å n e m a r k

T r a u m a ( 1 0 )

6

2

1 0 0

- 0 . 3 ± 0 . 2 4

¶

2 0 0 6


C S

3 0 / 3 4

I T

I

A g e n e s i s ( 3 0 )

2 - 3 . 2

1

1 0 0

- 1 . 2 ± 0 . 6 1

§

1 9 9 7


C S

1 5 / 1 5

A s t r a T e c h

N R

2

1

1 0 0

+ 0 . 0 1 ± 0 . 5 0 * ¶

2 0 0 0


C S

1 5 / 1 5

A s t r a T e c h

N R

5

1

1 0 0

+ 0 . 1 2 ± 0 . 4 9 * ¶

p o l i


C S

1 6 / 1 6

B r å n e m a r k

N R

1

5

1 0 0

- 1 . 6

± 0 . 5 7

* #

d d e v i a t i o n c a l c u l a t e d .

* * D e n e d a s i m p l a n

t s t h a t d i d n o t s u r v i v e a n d i m p l a n t s l o s t t o f o l l o w - u p .

# F r o m i m

p l a n t p

l a c e m e n t . ‡ F r o m h

e a l i n g a b u t m e n

t p l a c e m e n t . § F r o m t e

m -

o w n p l a c e m e n t . ¶ F r o m d

e n i t i v e c r o w n p l a

c e m e n t . A b b r e v i a t i o n s : N R = n o t r e p o r t e d ,

R C T = r a n d o m i z e d c l i n i c a l t r i a l , C T = c l i n i c a l t r i a l , C S = c a s e s e r i e s , T = t e s t g r o u p ,

o l g r o u p

.

Y S T

O O L S D





2525( C o n t

i n u e d )

0 1

N R

N R

N R

+ 0 . 3 4 ± 0 . 9 4

§

N R

0 . 5 %

o f s i t e s

e x a m i n e d

N R

1 a d j a c e n t t o o t h m i -

g r a t e d , 1 p e r i - i m p l a n t

m u c o s i t i s , 1 i m p l a n t

d i s c o m f o r t , 3 c r o w n s

l o o s e n e d ; 4 f r a c t u r e d

0 7

N R

N R

N R

+ 0 . 5 1 ± 1 . 4 2

§

N R

N R

N R

S e e a b o v e .

N o n e w

c o m p l i c a t i o n s r e -

p o r t e d

2 0 0 2

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

1 s t u l a , 3 c r o w n s

l o o s e n e d

2 0 0 7

6 6 %

a c c e p t a b l e

8 . 5 (

6 - 1 0 )

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

N R

5 0 %

s c o r e 2 ,

5 0 %

s c o r e 3

N R

N R

N R

N R

N o c o m p l i c a t i o n s

N R

N R

N R

- 0 . 1 ± N R ¶

N R

N R

N R

N o c o m p l i c a t i o n s

0 6

3 %

n o t s a t i s f a c t o r y

N R

r e s p .

6 % , 1 2 % , 8 2 %

s c o r e 1 , 2 , 3

- 0 . 6 ± N R §

2 . 6

± 0 . 2

#

1 8 %

N o b l e e d i n g

N o i m p l a n t - r e l a t e d

c o m p l i c a t i o n s .

9 7

N R

N R

N R

N o r e c e s s i o n

N R

N R

N o b l e e d i n g

N o s o f t t i s s u e c o m -

p l i c a t i o n s . 1 c r o w n

l o o s e n e d ,

1 p o r c e l a i n f r a c t u r e

0 0

N R

N R

N R

N o r e c e s s i o n

N R

N R

R a r e

S e e a b o v e .

N o n e w

c o m p l i c a t i o n s r e -

p o r t e d

i 2 0 0 6

N R

N R

r e s p . 1 4 % , 6

8 % , 1

8 %

s c o r e 1 , 2 , 3

- 0 . 6 ± 0 . 7

¶

2 . 4 ± 0 . 8

N R

9 %

N R

n o f P a p i l l a I n d e x . † M e a n V A S - s c o r e s f o r a e s t h e t i c a p p e a r a n c e a n d g e n e r a l f u

n c t i o n .

# S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n c a l c u l a t e d .

‡ F r o m i m

p l a n t p l a c e m e n t . § F r

o m t e

m p o r a r y c r o w n

¶ F r o m d

e n i t i v e c r o w n p l a c e m e n t . A b b r e v

i a t i o n s : T = t e s t g r o u p ,

C = c o n t r o l g r o u p ,

N R = n o t r e p o r t e d .

Y S T

O O L S D






2

2727

Globally four different treatment strategies could be identied. In this matter,

survival outcomes of immediate and early placed implants that were restored

conventionally were combined as well as implants that were installed convention-

ally but were restored immediately or early. Results of the weighted (for study-

size) stratied meta-analysis are presented in Table 6, revealing no differences

in survival rate after one-year follow-up. Focussing on the studies individually, no

statistically signicant differences in implant survival were found in clinical trials

comparing immediate or early implant procedures with conventional ones.

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of implant loss within one year after restoration.

Y S T

O O L S D






2

29

2005, Cardaropoli et al. 2006) (in total 52 implants) revealed a mean marginal

bone loss of 0.20 mm (95% CI: 0.034 – 0.36) during the rst year after installa-

tion of the denitive crown (see Figure 3). Data from radiographic examinations

were mostly presented as mean values and consequently no frequency distribu-

tions were given. Cooper et al. (2001) considered the incidence of marginal boneloss of 48 implants one year after insertion. The latter authors found that after

one year eight implants showed a cortical bone loss of 1.0 to 2.0 mm and three

implants more than 2.0 mm. Finally, the bone level changes detected in the ex-

perimental and conventional study groups of the included clinical trials were not

signicantly different.

Figure 3. Meta-analysis of marginal bone level changes 1 year after instal-

lation of the definitive crown.

Aesthetics

Albeit all implants reviewed were inserted in the aesthetic zone, only three stud-

ies included the aesthetic outcome in their analysis. Zarone et al. (2006) con-

sidered one implant not being satisfactory because of exposure of the titanium

neck. It was, however, unclear how the aesthetics were measured. At the three-

year control visit Gotfredsen (2004) asked an independent dentist to evaluate

the aesthetic appearance of the implant crowns using a visual analog scale (VAS)

ranging from ‘very unsatised’ (score 0) to ‘very satised’ (score 10). In the study

by Meijndert et al. (2007), a prosthodontist rated the aesthetics on colour pho-

tographs using an objective rating index. It appeared that 34% of the cases were

judged as poor aesthetics.

Y S T

O O L S D






22

31

restoration. High satisfaction scores were reported. Three studies (Gotfredsen

2004, Meijndert et al. 2007, De Rouck et al. 2008) made use of a VAS (range

0-10), one study (Kan et al. 2003a) of a scale ranging from very unsatised (score

0) to very satised (score 10), and in one study (Ericsson et al. 2000) patients

were asked about their satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome.

Complications

The complications described in the various articles were subdivided in biologi-

cal and technical ones. With respect to biological complications, the authors re-

ported on stula formations, peri-implant mucositis and soft tissue dehiscences.

All stula subsided after placement of the denitive restoration (Andersen et al.

2002, Kan et al. 2003a) or after non-invasive therapy (Gotfredsen 2004, Schropp

et al. 2005b). In the study by Schropp et al. (2005b) exposure of metal margins

was found in four patients. In three cases, the margin became exposed duringthe observation period because of soft tissue recession. In one case, the metal

margin of the crown was present just after crown placement, but became covered

with peri-implant mucosa during function.

Technical complications that were notied were loosening of (temporary) abut-

ments and loosening or fractures of (temporary) crowns. In most of the cases,

abutments could be retightened and crowns could be recemented easily. In the

study by Andersen et al. (2002) three out of eight denitive crowns loosened after

approximately one year. In two of these cases, this was a direct result of a new

trauma.

It could be noticed that not all studies provided data regarding complications

other than implant loss and crestal bone resorption. Concerning the comparative

studies, only Gotfredsen (2004) found more complications in the experimen-

tal ‘early placement’ study group. However, these implants were restored with

standard abutments, while preparable abutments were used for the conventional

implants and the author believed that the technical complications were probably

more related to this difference.

dIscussIon

This systematic review assessed the outcome of single-tooth implants in terms

of implant survival, marginal bone level changes, aesthetics, soft tissue aspects,

patient satisfaction and complications. Aside from the traditional approaches of

implant installation and restoration, more progressive treatment strategies of im-

mediate or early implant placement and immediate or early loading were consid-

ered for evaluation. Unfortunately, we could not draw rm conclusions regarding

the most preferable treatment strategy, owing to the lack of controlled clinical trials.

Y S T

O O L S D






2

33

this modality should be implemented with caution and should be preceded by

careful patient selection and treatment planning. The same hold true for immedi-

ate or early implant loading of implants placed in healed sites. Studies investigat-

ing these approaches, pointed out the importance of good initial implant stability

before loading and all provisional crowns were cleared from occlusion.It was only possible to combine the outcome measures of implant survival and

to a limited degree crestal bone changes in a stratied meta-analysis. Reasons

were that different outcomes or time points were used or some variables were

not taken into consideration. With reference to the clinical trials, for only one

outcome measure a signicant difference was observed. Schropp et al. (2005a)

reported that the level of the marginal peri-implant mucosa was acceptable in

signicantly more cases where implants were installed in early healed extraction

sites compared to conventionally healed sites; of the latter almost two-thirds of

the crowns were assessed to be too short. All other clinical trials failed to showany signicant differences.

Remarkably, only three studies assessed the aesthetic outcome of which only

one study made use of an objective aesthetic index. The lack of documentation of

well-dened aesthetic parameters in anterior implant research was demonstrated

earlier by Belser et al. (2004). Nowadays, two instruments are available that aim

to objectify the aesthetic outcome of single-tooth implant crowns, namely the

Implant Crown Aesthetic Index to measure the aesthetics of crown and mucosa

(Meijer et al. 2005) and the Pink Esthetic Score (Furhauser et al. 2005) which

focuses on soft tissue solely. It was concluded that both indexes showed repro-

duciblity, based on calculations of intra- and interobserver agreement. However,

the validity of these indexes was not investigated and although they show good

face validity, the construct validity in particular needs further research. Because

these indexes were developed fairly recently, this could be a prominent reason

that only Meijndert et al. (2007) used the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index, apart

from the fact that the latter authors introduced this index (Meijer et al., 2005).

Meijndert et al. (2007) reported that in 34% of the cases, the aesthetics were not

acceptable, which is a rather high percentage. It must be noted, however, that in

all cases a local bone augmentation procedure was needed prior to implantation

because of severe bone deciencies. This implies again the signicance of the

aesthetic appearance before implant treatment and that the nal aesthetics might

be strongly related to that appearance. To illustrate, when the starting point is

favorable, favorable aesthetics could be expected from an implant based single-

tooth replacement, both from the patient’s and professional’s perspectives, while

an unfavorable starting point might lead to satisfactory results from the patient’s

perspective while the professionals objective judgement might be unfavorable.

This incongruity might lead easily to bias in aesthetic implant research.

Y S T

O O L S D






2

35

thetic outcome and patient satisfaction, more long-term research is needed, such

as cohort-studies.

In conclusion, evidence from the included literature suggest that single-tooth

implants in the aesthetic zone with natural adjacent teeth will lead to (short-term)

successful treatment outcomes regarding implant survival, marginal bone levelchanges and incidence of biological and technical complications. However, with

reference to quality of study design, number of patients included and follow-up

duration, the included studies showed inadequacies. Moreover, other parameters

of utmost importance as the aesthetic outcome, soft tissue aspects, and patient

satisfaction were clearly underexposed. The question whether immediate and ear-

ly implant placement or immediate and early implant loading will result in compa-

rable – or even better – treatment outcomes than conventional implant protocols

of installation and restoration, remains inconclusive. Thus, more well-designed

(randomized) comparative trials are needed investigating objective aesthetic andsatisfaction parameters in particular, to verify these treatment strategies.

Y S T

O O L S D






2

37

Hall, J.A., Payne, A.G., Purton, D.G., Torr, B., Duncan, W.J.

& De Silva, R.K. (2007) Immediately restored, single-tapered

implants in the anterior maxilla: prosthodontic and aesthetic

outcomes after 1 year. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related

Research 9, 34-45.

Harvey, B.V. (2007) Optimizing the esthetic potential of

implant restorations through the use of immediate implants

with immediate provisionals. Journal of Periodontology 78,

770-776.

Henriksson, K. & Jemt, T. (2004) Measurements of soft tis-

sue volume in association with single-implant restorations: a

1-year comparative study after abutment connection surgery.

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 6, 181-189.

Irinakis, T. & Tabesh, M. (2007) Preserving the socket

dimensions with bone grafting in single sites: an esthetic

surgical approach when planning delayed implant place-

ment. Journal of Oral Implantology 33, 156-163.

Jemt, T. (1997) Regeneration of gingival papillae after

single-implant treatment. International Journal of Periodon-

tics and Restorative Dentistry 17, 327-333

Jemt, T. (1999) Restoring the gingival contour by means

of provisional resin crowns after single-implant treatment.

International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry

19, 20-29.

Jemt, T. & Lekholm, U. (2003) Measurements of buccal

tissue volumes at single-implant restorations after local

bone grafting in maxillas: a 3-year clinical prospective study

case series. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 5, 63-70.

Jemt, T. & Lekholm, U. (2005) Single implants and buccal

bone grafts in the anterior maxilla: measurements of buccal

crestal contours in a 6-year prospective clinical study. Clini-

cal Implant Dentistry and Related Research 7, 127-135.

Jensen, O.T., Kuhlke, L., Bedard, J.F. & White, D. (2006) Al-

veolar segmental sandwich osteotomy for anterior maxillary

vertical augmentation prior to implant placement. Journal of

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 64, 290-296.

Jung, R.E., Pjetursson, B.E., Glauser, R., Zembic, A.,

Zwahlen, M. & Lang, N.P . (2008) A systematic review of the

5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported

single crowns. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19, 119-130.

Kan, J.Y., Rungcharassaeng, K. & Lozada, J. (2003a) Imme-

diate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior

single implants: 1-year prospective study. International

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 18, 31-39.

Kan, J.Y., Rungcharassaeng, K., Umezu, K. & Kois, J.C.

(2003b) Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: an evaluation

of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. Journal of

Periodontology 74, 557-562.

Laney, W.R. (2007) Glossary of oral and maxillofacial

implants. Berlin. Quintessence.

Lazzara, R.J. & Porter, S.S. (2006) Platform switching: a

new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestora-

tive crestal bone levels. International Journal of Periodontics

and Restorative Dentistry 26, 9-17.

Lee, D.W., Park, K.H. & Moon, I.S. (2005) Dimension of

keratinized mucosa and the interproximal papilla between

adjacent implants. Journal of Periodontology 76, 1856-1860.

Lekovic, V., Kenney, E.B., Weinlaender, M., Han, T.,

Klokkevold, P., Nedic, M. & Orsini, M. (1997) A bone regen-

erative approach to alveolar ridge maintenance following

tooth extraction. Report of 10 cases. Journal of Periodontology

68, 563-570.

Lindeboom, J.A., Tjiook, Y. & Kroon, F.H. (2006) Immedi-

ate placement of implants in periapical infected sites: a

prospective randomized study in 50 patients. Oral Surgery,Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodon-

tics 101, 705-710.

Locante, W.M. (2004) Single-tooth replacements in the es-

thetic zone with an immediate function implant: a prelimi-

nary report. Journal of Oral Implantology 30, 369-375.

Lorenzoni, M., Pertl, C., Zhang, K., Wimmer, G. & Weg-

scheider, W.A. (2003) Immediate loading of single-tooth

implants in the anterior maxilla. Preliminary results after

one year. Clinical Oral Implants Research 14, 180-187.

Maeda, Y., Miura, J., Taki, I. & Sogo, M. (2007) Biomechani-cal analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechani-

cal rationale? Clinical Oral Implants Research 18, 581-584.

Meijer, H.J., Stellingsma, K., Meijndert, L. & Raghoebar,

G.M. (2005) A new index for rating aesthetics of implant-

supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues--the

Implant Crown Aesthetic Index. Clinical Oral Implants

Research 16, 645-649.

Meijndert, L., Meijer, H.J., Stellingsma, K., Stegenga, B. &

Raghoebar, G.M. (2007) Evaluation of aesthetics of implant-

supported single-tooth replacements using different bone

augmentation procedures: a prospective randomized clinical

study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 18, 715-719.

Morton, D., Martin, W.C. & Ruskin, J.D. (2004) Single-stage

Straumann dental implants in the aesthetic zone: considera-

tions and treatment procedures. Journal of Oral and Maxil-

lofacial Surgery 62, 57-66.

Noelken, R., Morbach, T., Kunkel, M. & Wagner, W. (2007)

Immediate function with NobelPerfect implants in the

anterior dental arch. International Journal of Periodontics and

Restorative Dentistry 27, 277-285.

Palmer, R.M., Palmer, P.J. & Smith, B.J. (2000) A 5-year

Y S T

O O L S D






2

39

Y S T

O O L S D



Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ma-ra
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Unlock Key Implant..

Documents