Volume 47, Issue 10 pp. 1248-1258
ORIGINAL ARTICLE IMPLANT DENTISTRY

A 10-year prospective study on single immediate implants

Lorenz Seyssens

Corresponding Author

Lorenz Seyssens

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Correspondence

Lorenz Seyssens, Ghent University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Aryan Eghbali

Aryan Eghbali

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Oral Health Research Group (ORHE), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Jan Cosyn

Jan Cosyn

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Oral Health Research Group (ORHE), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 August 2020
Citations: 44

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the clinical, aesthetic and radiographical outcome of single immediate implant placement (IIP) after 10 years (a) and to identify putative risk factors for advanced mid-facial recession (b).

Material and Methods

Periodontally healthy patients with a thick gingival biotype and intact buccal bone wall were consecutively treated with a single immediate implant and crown in the aesthetic zone (15–25). Flapless surgery and socket grafting with deproteinized bovine bone mineral were performed. Seven patients received a connective tissue graft (CTG) at 3 months due to obvious alveolar process deficiency (n = 5) or advanced mid-facial recession (n = 2). Clinical, aesthetic and radiographical outcomes at 10 years were compared to those at 5 years and CBCTs were taken at 10 years.

Results

Twenty-two patients (10 women; mean age 50) were consecutively treated and 18 could be re-examined. Two implants failed and two patients died. None of the parameters differed between the 5- and 10-year re-assessment (marginal bone loss: 0.31 mm; plaque score: 15%; probing depth: 3.4 mm; bleeding on probing: 32%; pink aesthetic score: 10.61; mesial papillary recession: −0.03 mm; distal papillary recession: 0.22 mm; mid-facial recession: 0.58 mm). Six implants (33%) demonstrated ≥1 mm mid-facial recession. Putative risk factors were merely based on descriptive statistics and included buccal shoulder position, no CTG, convex emergence profile and central incisor position. Three implants (17%) had no visible buccal bone on CBCT. One of these was too buccally positioned, another yielded peri-implant mucositis and another demonstrated peri-implantitis.

Conclusions

Advanced mid-facial recession is common in the long term following IIP. Therefore, caution is required for IIP in the aesthetic zone.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded by the authors and their institutions. Nobel Biocare Belgium provided free materials to be used in the study. Prof. Cosyn has collaboration agreements with Nobel Biocare (Kloten, Switzerland) and Straumann (Basel, Switzerland).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.