The effect of a laser grooved implant collar compared to a standard implant collar on peri-implant hard and soft tissue healing.

摘要

Aims. The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial was to compare the hard and soft tissue response of a standard vs. a laser grooved implant collar using objective and subjective clinical parameters.;Results. Implant interproximal crestal bone loss was similar for the laser-grooved collar and the standard collar implants from placement to 6 months. For the laser-grooved group, 0.3 +/- 0.6 mm for the mesial and 0.1 +/- 0.6 mm for the distal was lost. 0.0 +/- 0.9 mm for the mesial and 0.3 +/- 0.6 mm for the distal was lost, for the standard group. Using the Jemt Papilla index, the laser group had ≥ 50% papilla present in 71% of sites (10 of 14) vs. 83% (5 of 6) for the standard group. Facial recession was minimal for both groups, 0.3 +/- 0.5 mm for the laser-grooved group and 0.3 +/- 0.6 mm for the standard collar group. Gingival margin harmony was present 71% (5/7) of the time in the laser group 67% (2/3) of the time for the standard group. Papilla harmony was achieved in one case for the laser-grooved group (1/7) and not achieved in any of the standard cases (0/3). The Pink Esthetic Score, an index of soft tissue esthetics, was 10.4 +/- 1.5 for the laser-grooved implants and 11.7 +/- 0.6 for the standard collar implants. The mean osseous crest to contact distance was 4.5 +/- 1.0 mm on the mesial and 4.0 +/- 1.6 mm on the distal for the laser-grooved group and 4.2 +/- 0.6 mm on the mesial and 3.5 +/- 1.0 on the distal for the standard group.;Conclusions. Interproximal bone loss was similar for both the laser grooved and the standard implant collar. Soft tissue healing in terms of papilla formation and recession was similar for both groups. Subjective patient assessment of esthetics using the Visual Analog Scale was higher for the laser grooved collar group.;Methods. Ten patients received a single tooth implant in the maxillary anterior that was bordered by at least one tooth. Seven test patients received a laser grooved collar implant while three positive control patients received a standard smooth collar implant in a healed edentulous space. A fixture level impression was taken at implant placement to facilitate provisional placement at the 2 month uncovering visit. At 4 months a second fixture level impression was taken and a final restoration was fabricated. Final measurements were taken following crown placement at 6 months.