Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Achieving an optimal esthetic result using dental implants is challenging. Fixed implant-supported provisional crowns are often used to customize the emergence profile and to individualize the surrounding peri-implant soft tissue. PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to evaluate whether the use of a provisional implant-supported crown leads to an esthetic benefit on implants that are placed in the esthetic zone. The null hypothesis is that there is no-difference between the two study groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty single implants (Bone Level, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were inserted in consecutive patients. After reopening, a randomization process assigned them to either cohort group 1: a provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning using the "dynamic compression technique" or cohort group 2: without a provisional. Implants were finally restored with an all-ceramic crown. Follow-up examinations were performed at 3 and 12 months including implant success and survival, clinical, and radiographic parameters. RESULTS: After 1 year all implants successfully integrated, mean values of combined modPES and WES were 16.7 for group 1 and 10.5 for Group 2. This was statistically significant. Mean bone loss after 1 year was -0.09 and -0.08 for groups 1 and 2, respectively, without being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: A provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning does improve the final esthetic result.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Furze et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: