A 3-year Retrospective Study of Fresh Socket Implants: CAD/CAM Customized Healing Abutment vs Cover Screws

Aim To evaluate width loss of the alveolar ridge three years after implant placement in a fresh extraction socket following two different tissue healing methodologies: conventional healing procedure vs CAD/CAM technology for a customized healing abutment. Materials and methods Post-extraction sockets underwent immediate dental implant placement without the voids being filled between the implant surface and the socket wall. Samples (one implant per patient) were retrospectively enrolled in each group according to the type of healing procedure: implants in the conventional group underwent standard closed healing with a cover screw, while in the customized group the healing abutment was immediately screwed onto the head of the implant, mimicking the look of the extracted tooth fabricated by CAD/CAM technology. The width of the alveolar ridge was measured on 3D radiographs at baseline (before surgery) and three years postsurgery. Nonparametric statistics were performed with a significance level of 0.01. Results A total of 54 dental implants were selected. An implant survival rate of 100% was reported for all implants after 36 months. Three years after implant placement, loss in bone width was registered for both the conventional and customized groups, being 2.2 (1.1) and 0.2 (0.7) mm, respectively. Changes in the customized group were significantly lower than in the conventional group. Significant differences were again found between the groups for each of the tooth sites. Loss of bone width appeared negligible (from incisor to premolar), with values ranging between 0.2 and 0.4 mm in the customized group, whereas in the conventional group all tooth sites underwent wide shrinkage (with a bone loss ranging from 1.6 to 3.0 mm). Conclusion The CAD/CAM procedure might provide the following advantages: 1) Stabilization of the gingival setting and bone volume in a fresh socket implant; 2) Maintaining the same emergence profile of teeth for restorative crowns, avoiding laboratory approximation of the emergence profile of the definitive restoration; and 3) Optimal prosthetic-surgical planning and minimally invasive extraction to preserve the integrity of the supporting tissue.