title: Immediate versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary lateral incisor: a 3-year randomized clinical trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The aim of this study was to compare the bone loss pattern and soft tissue healing of immediately versus one-stage loaded 3.0-mm-diameter implants in cases involving a single missing lateral maxillary incisor.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty patients with a missing lateral incisor in the maxilla were randomized to one of the treatments: 30 patients in the immediate-restoration group and 30 patients in the one-stage group. All implants were placed in healed sites and had to be inserted with a torque >25 Ncm. The implants in the immediate-restoration group were fitted with a non-occluding temporary crown on the day of surgery. Both groups received a full occluding final crown 6 months after surgery. Mean marginal bone loss, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were assessed at 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up examinations by a masked examiner.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Sixty 3.0-mm-diameter implants were placed between July 2003 and February 2006; 27 (45.0%) were in men, and 33 (55.0%) were in women. All implants osseointegrated and were clinically stable at the 6-month follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed for bleeding or plaque index. No implant fractures occurred. At the 36-month follow-up, the accumulated mean marginal bone loss and probing depth were 0.85 +/- 0.71 mm and 1.91 +/- 0.59 mm, respectively, for the immediate-loading group (n = 30) and 0.75 +/- 0.63 mm and 2.27 +/- 0.81 mm, respectively, for the one-stage group (n = 30). There was no statistically significant difference (P >0.05) for the tested outcome measures between the two procedures.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In the rehabilitation of a single missing lateral maxillary incisor, no statistically significant difference was assessed between immediately and one-stage restored small-diameter implants with regard to implant survival, mean marginal bone loss, and probing depth. Three-millimeter-diameter implants proved to be a predictable treatment option in our test and control groups if a strict clinical protocol was followed.
authors.affiliation: Dental School, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Degidi
authors.forename: Diego
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Nardi
authors.forename: Adriano
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Piattelli
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000145:classification / Q000209:etiology; D000848:Anodontia / Q000628:therapy*; D003442:Crowns; D000044:Dental Abutments; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000379:methods; D019250:Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; D003774:Dental Plaque Index; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D003794:Dental Restoration, Temporary; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005884:Gingival Hemorrhage / Q000145:classification; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000002:abnormalities*; D008297:Male; D008437:Maxilla / Q000601:surgery; D008875:Middle Aged; D016348:Osseointegration / Q000502:physiology; D010512:Periodontal Index; D010514:Periodontal Pocket / Q000145:classification; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult