Performance of the Straumann Bone Level Implant system for anterior single-tooth replacements in augmented and nonaugmented sites: A prospective cohort study with 60 consecutive patients

Aim The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate radiographic, clinical and aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction of cases treated with platform-switched single implant restorations in the aesthetic region of the maxilla. Furthermore, the influence of an augmentation procedure 3months before implant placement and the type of restoration (screw-retained vs. cement-retained) was evaluated. Material and methods Sixty patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were treated with a Straumann Bone Level Implant. Bone augmentation was performed in 29 patients at 3months before implant placement. Implants were loaded after 3months of submerged healing. Follow-up was conducted at 7 and 18months after implant placement. Peri-implant mucosa and implant crown aesthetic outcomes were determined using the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI) and the Pink Esthetic Score-White Esthetic Score (PES-WES). Results No implants were lost. At 18months after implant placement, mean bone level change was -0.10 +/- 0.27mm and mean probing pocket depth was 2.57mm. No differences were found between augmented and nonaugmented sites (P=0.28). The ICAI indicated satisfactory mucosa and crown aesthetics in 67% and 75% of the cases, respectively, while the PES score was 14.4. ICAI mucosa (P=0.004) and PES (P=0.02) scores were significantly less favourable for augmented sites compared with nonaugmented sites. Patient satisfaction was high (8.9 +/- 1.1 on VAS-score). Conclusions From the present prospective, clinical study, it can be concluded that the Straumann Bone Level Implant shows an excellent survival rate, marginal bone stability and good clinical and aesthetic results. Bone augmentation before implant placement does not lead to more marginal bone loss. However, less favourable pink aesthetic outcomes were found in augmented sites compared with nonaugmented sites, while no differences were found between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations.