Tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants and natural teeth

AIM: The purpose of this randomized split-mouth clinical trial was to determine the active tactile sensibility between single-tooth implants and opposing natural teeth and to compare it with the tactile sensibility of pairs of natural teeth on the contralateral side in the same mouth (intraindividual comparison). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The hypothesis was that the active tactile sensibilities of the implant side and control side are equivalent. Sixty two subjects (n=36 from Bonn, n=26 from Bern) with single-tooth implants (22 anterior and 40 posterior dental implants) were asked to bite on narrow copper foil strips varying in thickness (5-200 microm) and to decide whether or not they were able to identify a foreign body between their teeth. Active tactile sensibility was defined as the 50% threshold of correct answers estimated by means of the Weibull distribution. RESULTS: The results obtained for the interocclusal perception sensibility differed between subjects far more than they differed between natural teeth and implants in the same individual [implant/natural tooth: 16.7+/-11.3 microm (0.6-53.1 microm); natural tooth/natural tooth: 14.3+/-10.6 microm (0.5-68.2 microm)]. The intraindividual differences only amounted to a mean value of 2.4+/-9.4 microm (-15.1 to 27.5 microm). The result of our statistical calculations showed that the active tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants, both in the anterior and posterior region of the mouth, in combination with a natural opposing tooth is similar to that of pairs of opposing natural teeth (double t-test, equivalence margin: +/-8 microm, P<0.001, power >80%). Hence, the implants could be integrated in the stomatognathic control circuit.     

Effect of Flapless Surgery on Single‐Tooth Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Implant therapy is a highly predictable treatment option; however, insufficient data exist to show whether flapless implant surgery provides better esthetic outcomes and less bone loss than implant surgery with a flap approach. Methods: In this randomized, controlled study comparing the flapless and traditional flap protocol for implant placement, 24 patients received a single implant in the anterior maxillary region. A cone beam computed tomography–aided surgical guide was used for implant placement surgery for both groups. Implants were restored using a one‐piece, screw‐retained ceramic crown at 3 months. Radiographic and clinical measurements were assessed at baseline (implant placement) and at 3 (crown placement), 6, 9, and 15 months. Clinical parameters evaluated were plaque index, gingival index, papillary index (PPI) (0 = no papilla, 1 = less than half, 2 = more than half but not complete, 3 = complete fill, and 4 = overfill), marginal tissue levels, biotype, width of keratinized tissue, and soft tissue thickness. Results: Implant success rate was 92% in both groups. Mean PPI values for the flap control group and flapless test group were 2.38 ± 0.51 versus 2.31 ± 0.48 at crown placement (P = 0.68) and 2.52 ± 0.52 versus 2.64 ± 0.54 at 15 months (P = 0.42), respectively. PPI increased over time in both groups, although the flapless group had a significantly larger change in PPI from crown placement to 6 and 9 months (P <0.01). Crestal bone levels in the flap group were more apical in relation to the implant platform than those in the flapless group for the duration of the study. No differences among groups were noted for all other measurements. Conclusions: Both flapless and flap implant placement protocols resulted in high success rates. A flapless protocol may provide a better short‐term esthetic result, although there appears to be no long‐term advantage.