Root-Analogue Implants compared to Forced Orthodontic Extrusion: A retrospective analysis of clinical, radiological and esthetic outcomes after restoration.

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To assess clinical, radiological and esthetic outcomes of prosthodontic rehabilitations supported by root-analogue implants (RAIs) or roots of severely damaged teeth after forced orthodontic extrusion (FOE). Materials and Methods Clinical data regarding RAIs and FOE were recorded and retrospectively evaluated for 40 patients by two independent investigators. Functional and esthetic outcomes were assessed for n = 20 pre-molars and n = 20 anterior teeth via comparison of radiographic and digital images applying the novel Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Mann-Whitney-U-Test was used to compare the assessed parameters. Level of significance was set to p < 0.05. Results Mean observation period for restorations supported by RAIs was 18.4 ± 5.7 months and 43.9 ± 16.4 months for restorations after FOE. Krippendorff’s alpha coefficients did not reveal unacceptable inter-rater reliabilities regarding the investigators and applicability of FIPS. Significant differences were documented when comparing restorations after FOE or supported by RAIs regarding “bone” (p < 0.01), “interproximal” (p < 0.05) and “mucosa” (p < 0.02) in favor of FOE. Conclusions Within the limitations of the present retrospective investigation both concepts seem to provide clinically acceptable results. However, bone- and tissue-preserving characteristics of FOE appear to be more promising. Clinical Relevance: Especially bone- and tissue-preserving characteristics regarding the concept of FOE are promising. It could be applicable for socket preservation and subsequent conventional implant placements in an adapted workflow.