Clinical and radiographic outcome following immediate loading and delayed loading of single-tooth implants: Randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Gjelvold ◽  
Jenö Kisch ◽  
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic ◽  
Tomas Albrektsson ◽  
Ann Wennerberg
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Radiographic Outcome ◽  
Single Tooth

Immediate Loading of Anterior Single-Tooth Implants Placed in Healed Sites: Five-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2016 ◽  
pp. 584-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens den Hartog ◽  
Gerry Raghoebar ◽  
Kees Stellingsma ◽  
Arjan Vissink ◽  
Henny Meijer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Single Tooth

Single-Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens den Hartog ◽  
Gerry M. Raghoebar ◽  
James J. Huddleston Slater ◽  
Kees Stellingsma ◽  
Arjan Vissink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Aesthetic Outcome ◽  
Single Tooth ◽  
The Aesthetic

Effect of Flapless Surgery on Single-Tooth Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 84 (12) ◽  
pp. 1747-1754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill D. Bashutski ◽  
Hom-Lay Wang ◽  
Ivan Rudek ◽  
Ildefonso Moreno ◽  
Tapan Koticha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Single Tooth

scholarly journals Comparative Study between an Immediate Loading Protocol Using the Digital Workflow and a Conventional Protocol for Dental Implant Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piyanut Rattanapanich ◽  
Weerapan Aunmeungtong ◽  
Pisaisit Chaijareenont ◽  
Pathawee Khongkhunthian
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Digital Workflow ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Marginal Bone Level ◽  
Implant Treatment

Background: The purposes of this randomized clinical trial study was to compare the immediate loading of dental implants while employing digital workflow and conventional implants in terms of the success rate, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction. Methods: Fifty patients who had edentulous area on the mandibular premolar or molar area were included in the study. Twenty-five patients were assigned to immediate loading implant treatment using the digital technique and 25 patients were assigned to conventional loading implant treatment. In the first group, the patients were received digital impression (Cerec Omnicam, Dentsply Sirona®, York, PA, USA), designed, producing zirconia crown, and inserted on the same surgery day. The second group, after a healing period of three months, was received analog impression following conventional impression for the zirconia crown. Clinical outcome and radiographic bone level were evaluated after three, six, and 12 months. Patient satisfaction was measured at 12 months after inserting the implant. Results: There was no implants and protheses failure in both groups. The mean resonance frequency analysis values at the day of surgery were 78.26 ± 4.09 in immediate loading using the digital group (ILD) and 73.74 ± 5.14 in the conventional loading group (CL), respectively. Insertion torque values at the day of surgery were 36.60 ± 12.64 in ILD and 38.8 ± 12.19 CL, respectively. The marginal bone level in CL at three, six, and 12 months were 0.14 ± 0.28 mm, 0.18 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.17 ± 0.29 mm, respectively, while in ILD at three, six, and 12 months were 0.18 ± 0.33 mm and 0.16 ± 0.27 mm and 0.15 ± 0.31, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Only one question in patient satisfaction’s questionnaire was “Now, can your dental implant and crown be used well?” had been significantly different in favor to the conventional group. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, it may be concluded that, after one-year follow up, there were no statistically significant differences between the immediate loading of dental implants employed from the digital workflow and conventional implant treatment technique in the success rate and marginal bone level. In patient satisfaction, there was only statistic significant difference in question related to implant prosthetic function in favor of the CL group, whereas the question concerning speaking, cleansing, price, and expectation displayed no difference.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document