Morales Schwarz David, Szmukler-Moncler Serge, Morales Melendez Hilde, Beuer Florian
Clinica Dental M&M, Valladolid, Spain.
Department of Prosthodontics, Charité University of Medicine, Berlin, Charité Center 03, Assmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Int J Implant Dent. 2025 Feb 1;11(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s40729-025-00589-8.
Between adjacent dental implants, an interimplant distance (IID) of at least 3 mm has been recommended to avoid resorbing the interproximal crestal bone. The effect of a 2 mm IID on crestal bone loss has been investigated but the literature is scarce when it comes to an IID of 1 mm. There is a need to document such clinical situations when they occur and elucidate if such a narrow IID is deleterious or not to the interproximal crest. The present case deals with an IID of 1 mm in the premolar area where, for the first time, the fate of an interimplant crest is reported after a 10-year follow-up.
A 57-year-old patient attended with 2 hopeless maxillary premolars. The mesio-distal space available for implant rehabilitation was too narrow to receive standard diameter implants and keep an inter-implant distance (IID) of 3 mm as recommended by accepted guidelines. A protocol of immediate implant placement and provisionalization involving 2 implants of Ø 3.5 mm was implemented; placement in the extraction sockets resulted in an IID of 1 mm. After 3 months of healing the final prosthesis was delivered; the patient has been followed for 10 years now. Surprisingly, the findings showed that the interimplant crest was maintained 1.40 mm coronal to the shoulder of the neck of the implants. Bone completely filled the space between the prosthetic concave abutments and the interproximal papilla was closing the embrasure. The literature reports only 2 experimental studies involving a 1 mm IID; both showed that this did not lead to the resorption of the interproximal bone.
Unexpectedly, the present case with an IID of 1 mm did not lead to the resorption of the interproximal bone after 10 years. It is speculated that the reason for that is due to the implants displaying an internal conical connection, the platform-switching feature, concave abutments and subcrestal placement. The fate of the interproximal crest of implants placed with an IID of 1 mm lacks scientific evidence. More studies are warranted to elucidate this question in order to propose the best implant treatment in cases displaying a limited mesio-distal space.
在相邻牙种植体之间,建议保持至少3毫米的种植体间距离(IID),以避免邻间嵴骨吸收。已有研究探讨了2毫米IID对嵴骨吸收的影响,但关于1毫米IID的文献较少。有必要记录此类临床情况的发生,并阐明如此狭窄的IID对邻间嵴是否有害。本病例涉及前磨牙区1毫米的IID,首次报告了10年随访后种植体间嵴的情况。
一名57岁患者有2颗上颌前磨牙无可保留。可用于种植修复的近远中间隙过窄,无法容纳标准直径的种植体并按公认指南建议保持3毫米的种植体间距离(IID)。实施了包括2颗直径3.5毫米种植体的即刻种植和临时修复方案;种植于拔牙窝内导致IID为1毫米。愈合3个月后交付最终修复体;患者现已随访10年。令人惊讶的是,结果显示种植体间嵴维持在种植体颈部肩部冠方1.40毫米处。骨完全填充了修复体凹形基台之间的间隙,邻间乳头封闭了牙间隙。文献仅报道了2项涉及1毫米IID的实验研究;两者均表明这不会导致邻间骨吸收。
出乎意料的是,本病例中1毫米的IID在10年后并未导致邻间骨吸收。推测其原因是种植体具有内锥形连接、平台转换特征、凹形基台和骨下种植位置。关于1毫米IID种植体邻间嵴情况缺乏科学证据。需要更多研究来阐明这个问题,以便在近远中间隙有限的病例中提出最佳的种植治疗方案。