LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 34 , Issue 6
November/December 2019

Pages 15051511


Customized vs Conventional Implant-Supported Immediate Provisional Crowns for Fresh-Socket Implant: A Medium-Term Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Giovanni-Battista Menchini-Fabris, DDS/Ugo Covani, MD, DDS/Giovanni Crespi, MD/Paolo Toti, BSc, DDS/Bruno Brevi, MD/Roberto Crespi, MD, MSc


PMID: 31711090
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7199

Purpose: To measure the volume effect on maintaining a sealing around immediately rehabilitated dental implants in a comparison between customized and conventional provisional crowns at a 3-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: A single crown supported by a dental implant was used as a rehabilitation strategy for a failing tooth. The primary predictor was the type of immediate restoration with custom or conventional provisional crowns; a secondary predictor was tooth position: incisor, canine, or premolar. In order to accurately measure the width between buccal and palatal plates at the alveolar margin in a comparison between preoperative (before tooth extraction) and postoperative (at the 3-year follow-up) radiographs, two cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were three-dimensionally analyzed and superimposed. Results: Seventy-six patients, rehabilitated with single implants, were selected (31 implants belonging to the custom group and 45 to the conventional group). In patients treated with conventional restorations, a significant shrinkage (0.6 1.2 mm with P = .002) was registered. On the other hand, the bone change registered for the custom restoration group appeared negligible, with a nonsignificant and slight increase in width (+0.2 0.7 mm). When the subgroups regarding the implant sites were investigated, the decrease in width was very limited for the canine tooth in the custom group (0.3 0.2 mm), whereas the shrinkage at the canine in the standard group appeared to be significantly higher (1.5 0.7 mm with P = .0001). Conclusion: An anatomically contoured provisional restoration may provide a strategy to stimulate peri-implant soft tissue healing, minimize loss of buccal bone plate at the marginal level, and maintain pristine volume in the alveolar bone better than noncustomized restorations.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help