Objectives: To investigate the association of the one-abutment one-time concept with marginal bone loss (MBL) around bone-level implants in relation to other factors.
Materials And Methods: Records from patients treated by four experienced implant surgeons between January 2016 and July 2019 were scrutinized. Subjects treated with two bone-level implant types with varying machined collar (subgroups: 0.5 and 0.8 mm) were considered, receiving a healing abutment (HA cohort) or a permanent abutment at the time of surgery (OT cohort). The primary outcome was MBL registered at 3 months and the longest follow-up. A clustered two-part regression model for semicontinuous data was used.
Results: Data pertaining to 160 patients (92 females, mean age 54) and 344 implants (125 in HA cohort, 219 in OT cohort) were available for evaluation. Mean MBL amounted to 0.52 mm (SD 0.68) after a mean follow-up of 20 (SD 9.2) months, with 33.8% of the implants showing complete bone preservation and 5.0% demonstrating >2mm MBL. OT was not related to the presence of MBL using MBL as dependent binary variable (0: no MBL; 1: MBL irrespective of its magnitude). However, OT significantly reduced the magnitude of MBL with 0.300mm when compared to HA (p = .023) in the cases where MBL was detected. Subgroup (p = .212), smoking (p = .789), history of periodontitis (p = .839), type of edentulism (p = .054), implant surgeon (p = .079), patient compliance (p = .617), and follow-up (p = .443) failed to show a significant association with MBL in the regression model. Ninety-eight % of the implants survived.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of a cohort study, the one-abutment one-time concept was associated with a decrease in MBL at implant sites with bone loss. Therefore, the placement of a permanent abutment at the time of surgery seems relevant to limit marginal bone-level alterations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13689 | DOI Listing |
Purpose - The use of the one abutment one time concept involves the indirect measurement of the implant stability without removing the previously placed abutment. This study aims to verify whether measuring the implant stability quotient at the abutment level is identical to the value obtained at the implant level. Material And Methods - A retrospective clinical study and an in vitro study were performed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Esthet Restor Dent
November 2024
Private Practice, Milan, Italy.
Objective: This article describes a clinical protocol utilizing soft tissue augmentation alone or in combination with guided bone regeneration (GBR), introducing simultaneous application of the one abutment one time concept for three-dimensional reconstruction of the deficient ridge.
Clinical Considerations: Soft and hard tissue quality and dimensions are fundamental elements for long lasting results in implant dentistry. Different techniques have been described for soft and hard tissue augmentation at time of implant placement presenting favorable results.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
December 2024
Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University, Carolinum, Frankfurt, Germany.
Purpose: To evaluate the effects of repeated abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases.
Materials And Methods: A total of 27 edentulous patients (n = 108 implants) immediately restored with double-crown retained implant-supported prostheses were identified for this retrospective study. The test included the one-abutment, one-time care concept (n = 18 patients, n = 72 implants, OAOT) and the control abutment replacement (n = 9 patients, n = 36 implants, AR).
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
December 2024
Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Centre for Implantology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Objective: The SafetyCrown workflow facilitates the immediate restoration of posterior single sites with the one-abutment/one-time concept. This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the direct effect of immediate restoration on dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs), feasibility, implant accuracy, and time.
Materials And Methods: Participants with a single posterior edentulous site for late implant placement underwent optical impressions, shade selection, and cone beam computed tomography.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
October 2024
ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases) Research Group, Faculty of Dentistry, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Objective: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the effect on clinical and radiological outcomes of the one-abutment, one-time protocol (test) versus placing the definitive abutment on the day of functional loading after having disconnected and connected three times the healing abutment during the prosthetic phase (control).
Materials And Methods: Forty patients with 80 implants were randomly allocated to either the test or the control group. Changes in the radiographic marginal bone levels (MBLs), clinical outcomes, prosthetic-related outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were assessed and compared 6 and 12 months after functional loading.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!