A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Background

The Encode protocol (Biomet 3i, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla) has been proposed as a simplified implant restoration protocol.

Purpose

To compare the 1-year clinical outcome of the Encode and conventional protocols for restoring single implants.

Materials and methods

Forty-seven implants were inserted in 44 patients. After randomizing the implants, 24 implants were allocated to the Encode protocol and 23 implants were allocated to the conventional protocol. After 1 year, changes in esthetics, patient satisfaction, proximal contacts quality, occlusal contacts quality, marginal bone level (MBL), and probing pocket depth (PPD) were evaluated. Further, the prosthesis cleansability, mucosal health, bleeding on probing (BoP), metallic discoloration, and all forms complications were recorded.

Results

Forty patients with 41 implants (22 Encode and 19 conventional) were recalled. One conventional crown failed due to excessive looseness. Esthetics, patient satisfaction, and prosthesis cleansability were favorable for the two protocols. One Encode crown (4.5%) and six conventional crowns (33.3%) had slight mucosal redness. BoP was present around 8 Encode crowns (36.4%) and eight conventional crowns (45.4%). Only two conventional crowns showed metallic discoloration of the mucosa. The two protocols had similar PPD alteration (Encode = 0.04 mm, conventional = 0.13 mm), and MBL loss (Encode = 0.71 mm, conventional = 0.78 mm). Similar proximal contacts and occlusal contacts were observed for the two protocols.

Conclusions

After 1 year, the Encode protocol for restoring single implants appears to be comparable to the conventional protocol from the biological, prosthetic, and esthetic perspectives.

from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jODJIL
via IFTTT