Recently, tissue-level implants with a convergent collar have been introduced. While different studies have investigated the outcomes of this implant design in the rehabilitation of single teeth, its use in full-arch rehabilitation has yet to be investigated. The present case report describes the clinical outcomes of a full-arch immediate loading rehabilitation using tissue-level implants, with and without using implant-abutment units, with 2 years of follow-up. A female patient with mandibular terminal dentition and a high level of bone resorption (distal areas with a few millimeters of residual bone in the vertical dimension and both distal and anterior areas with narrow crestal bone in the horizontal dimension) was seen at the C.I.R Dental School, Turin, Italy. The patient was seeking to be rehabilitated with fixed prosthodontics, and she was found eligible for an immediate loading implant full-arch rehabilitation. Four implants were inserted in the same appointment. The two anterior implants were inserted straight and connected directly to the prosthesis (no abutments); the two distal implants were tilted in order to avoid the alveolar nerve and connected to two 30° angulated abutments. Two years post-implant placement, all of the implants were successfully integrated, resulting in an implant survival rate of 100%. The peri-implant soft tissues were stable at all the implant sites. No differences were highlighted between those implants with and without abutments. Within the limitations of the present clinical report, implant full-arch rehabilitations with tissue-level implants both with and without implant-abutment units showed optimal outcomes after two years of follow-up. Further research is encouraged to confirm whether this implant design may be a valid alternative to traditional implants in this type of rehabilitation, with or without implant-abutment units.

The objective of the present retrospective multi-center study was to analyze the outcomes of bone-level (BL) implants and tissue-level (TL) implants in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitations. Patients who were previously rehabilitated with full-arch immediate-loading rehabilitations with either BL or TL implants were considered. Data regarding implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded, and the 1-year follow-up data were statistically analyzed between the two groups. In total, 38 patients were evaluated for a total implant number of 156 (n = 80 TL implants and n = 76 BL implants). An implant survival rate of 97.37% was recoded for the BL group while an implant survival rate of 100% was noted for the TL group. A total MBL of 1.324 ± 0.64 mm was recorded for BL implants, while a total MBL of 1.194 ± 0.30 mm was recorded for TL implants. A statistically significant difference was highlighted regarding MBL at the mesial aspect (p = 0.01552) of the implants, with BL implants presenting with higher MBL. Within the range of acceptable healthy values, a statistically significant difference was also highlighted regarding BOP (p < 0.00001), with TL implants presenting higher values. No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was recorded for any of the other variables analyzed. Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, both TL and BL implants seem to provide good clinical outcomes after a 12-month observational period when employed in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitation.

Background: The aim of the present multi-center split-mouth randomized control trial was to investigate the effect on peri-implant tissue of abutment with chromium nitride/ niobium nitride (CrN/NbN) coatings (superlattice) compared to traditional machined surface. Methods: Two adjacent posterior implants were inserted in 20 patients. A machined abutment was randomly screwed on either the mesial or distal implant, while a superlattice abutment was screwed on the other one. Implant survival rate, peri-implant probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding index (BI) were collected 6 months after surgery, while marginal bone loss (MBL) was evaluated at T0 and T6.; Results: Implant survival rate was 97.7%. A total MBL of 0.77 ± 0.50 mm was recorded for superlattice abutments, while a mean MBL of 0.79 ± 0.40 mm was recorded for the abutment with machined surface. A mean PPD of 1.3 ± 0.23 mm was recorded for the superlattice Group, and a mean PPD of 1.31 ± 0.3 was recorded for the machined surface Group. PI was of 0.55 ± 0.51 for superlattice Group and 0.57 ± 0.50 for machined Group, while BI was of 0.47 ± 0.49 for superlattice Group and of 0.46 ± 0.40 for the machined one. No statistically significant difference was highlighted between the two Groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: After a 6-month observational period, no statistically significant differences were highlighted between superlattice abutment and traditional machined abutment. Further in vitro studies as well as clinical research with longer follow-ups are required to better investigate the surface properties of the novel abutments’ superlattice coating and its effect on the oral tissues.