journal article·2023-01-11Open access

Implant–Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis with Narrow Diameter Implants and Metal–Ceramic vs. All-Ceramic Single Crowns: A 16-Year Prospective Clinical Study

Roberto Sorrentino, Maria I. Di Mauro, Renato Leone, Gennaro Ruggiero, Marco Annunziata, Fernando Zarone

Applied Sciences· Volume 13· Issue 2

Abstract

The main objectives of the present prospective clinical study were to evaluate the marginal bone resorption and the peri-implant soft tissue conditions around narrow diameter implants, as well as the clinical performances of metal–ceramic and all-ceramic single crowns in the implant–prosthetic treatment of maxillary lateral incisors agenesis. Seventy-two patients affected by monolateral or bilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors were included in the study, and a total of 105 narrow diameter implants were inserted. The final single crowns were fabricated 4 months after the surgical procedures by means of either titanium abutments with Auro-Galvan Crowns (AGC) veneered with feldspathic ceramics or zirconia abutments with all-ceramic (alumina or zirconia) crowns layered with dedicated veneering ceramics. Both marginal bone resorption and soft tissue quality were evaluated after a maximum period of 16 years. Two independent survival curves for patients wearing AGC or all-ceramic crowns were calculated by means of Kaplan–Meier analysis, and a log-rank test was performed in order to compare these curves (p < 0.05). After 16 years of clinical function, a mean marginal bone resorption of 1.2 ± 0.61 mm and good response of peri-implant soft tissues were observed. Descriptive statistics resulted in 80% and 87.1% cumulative success rates for patients provided with AGC prostheses onto titanium abutments and all-ceramic crowns on-to zirconia abutments, respectively. The cumulative survival rate calculated for AGC group was 93.3%, whereas all-ceramic group showed a cumulative survival rate of 95.7%. No statistically significant differences were found with the log-rank tests. The overall success and survival rates calculated were 85% and 95% for all the restorations, respectively. Mucositis, abutment unscrewing, loss of retention, chipping, core fracture, and esthetic failure were the major complications reported. The implant–prosthetic approach can be considered an effective and viable solution to treat cases of maxillary lateral incisor agenesis in the long term.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · dental development and anomalies · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Neurosciences, University “Federico II” of Naples, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Science, 80131 Naples, Italy

Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy

References (34)

Show source-provided references
1. (2017). The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J. Prosthet. Dent., 117, e1–e105.10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.001 ↗
2. Pattern of agenesis and morphologic variation of the maxillary lateral incisors in nigerian orthodontic patients
3. Agenesis of the permanent lateral incisor: Distribution, number and sites
4. Familial aggregation of maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (MLIA)10.1136/bcr-2012-007846 ↗
5. The congenitally missing upper lateral incisor. A retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus restorative treatment10.1093/ejo/22.6.697 ↗
6. Prevalence of peg-shaped maxillary permanent lateral incisors: A meta-analysis10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.02.025 ↗
7. Prosthetic rehabilitation of a child affected from anhydrotic ectodermal dysplasia: A case report10.5005/jcdp-6-3-120 ↗
8. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypeople to altered dental esthetics in cases with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors10.1186/2196-1042-14-34 ↗
9. The restorative management of microdontia10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.595 ↗
10. Impact of oral-health-related quality of life and self-esteem on patients with missing maxillary lateral incisor after orthodontic space closure: A single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial10.1093/ejo/cjaa075 ↗
11. Single-tooth replacement: Bridge vs. implant-supported restoration
12. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part II: Tooth-supported restorations10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00089.x ↗
13. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part III: Single-tooth implants10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00116.x ↗
14. The treatment dilemma of missing maxillary lateral incisors-Part II: Implant restoration10.1111/jerd.12483 ↗
15. Orthodontic canine substitution vs. implant-supported prosthetic replacement for maxillary permanent lateral incisor agenesis: A systematic review
16. Treatment options for congenitally missing lateral incisors
17. Crestal bone loss around submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants: A systematic review10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.002 ↗
18. Esthetic and functional outcomes of narrow-diameter implants compared in a cohort study to standard diameter implants in the anterior zone of the maxilla
19. Telles, L.H., Portella, F.F., and Rivaldo, E.G. (2019). Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 14.10.1371/journal.pone.0225046 ↗
20. Narrow-diameter implants in the anterior region: A meta-analysis10.11607/jomi.7526 ↗
21. Single-tooth implants and their role in preserving remaining teeth: A 10-year survival study
22. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement
23. Clinical effectiveness of implant-supported single-tooth replacement: The Toronto Study
24. The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Retention Index Systems10.1902/jop.1967.38.6.610 ↗
25. Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment
26. Congenitally missing lateral incisors—A comparison between restorative, implant, and orthodontic approaches10.1016/j.cden.2011.01.004 ↗
27. Prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillary lateral incisors agenesis using dental mini-implants: A multicenter 10-year follow-up10.1007/s00784-021-04176-0 ↗
28. The effect of zirconia or titanium as abutment material on soft peri-implant tissues: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/clr.12631 ↗
29. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a small-diameter dental implant used for the restoration of patients with permanent tooth agenesis (hypodontia) in the maxillary lateral incisor and mandibular incisor regions: A 36-month follow-up10.11607/ijp.4444 ↗
30. Prosthetic treatment of maxillary lateral incisor agenesis with osseointegrated implants: A 24–39-month prospective clinical study10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01188.x ↗
31. Definition, etiology, prevention and treatment of peri-implantitis—A review10.1186/1746-160X-10-34 ↗
32. Kormas, I., Pedercini, C., Pedercini, A., Raptopoulos, M., Alassy, H., and Wolff, L.F. (2020). Peri-implant diseases: Diagnosis, clinical, histological, microbiological characteristics and treatment strategies. A narrative review. Antibiotics, 9.10.3390/antibiotics9110835 ↗
33. Immediate versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary lateral incisor: A 3-year randomized clinical trial10.1902/jop.2009.090153 ↗
34. Narrow single tooth implants for congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 5-year follow-up