Risk Factors Associated With Infraposition of Implant Supported Single Crowns in the Anterior Maxilla

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorRegion Västerbotten

About this trial

Losing a tooth in the front part of the upper jaw can affect both appearance and the ability to bite and chew. Treatment to replace missing teeth is therefore often required. Such treatment may be burdensome for the individual and can involve substantial costs for both the patient and society. A common treatment option is placement of a titanium screw (dental implant) in the jawbone. After a healing period, the implant is restored with a crown designed to resemble a natural tooth.

Replacement of missing teeth with dental implants in the anterior maxilla can be particularly challenging. Over time, the crown of an implant may appear shorter than the adjacent natural teeth. This occurs because natural teeth may continue to change position throughout adulthood, whereas dental implants remain fixed within the bone. As a result, the implant-supported crown may appear to sink relative to neighboring teeth, a phenomenon referred to as infraposition. The prevalence of infraposition and the factors contributing to its development are not yet fully understood.

The aim of this study is to determine the frequency and extent of infraposition and to identify potential contributing factors in individuals treated with a single implant-supported crown in the anterior maxilla. The study also aims to evaluate the aesthetic outcome after treatment from both the patient and the clinician perspective.

The study hypothesis is that infraposition occurs in a clinically relevant proportion of patients and that certain factors, such as age at implant placement or individual dental characteristics, may increase the likelihood of its occurrence. It is further hypothesized that infraposition of the implant-supported crown may influence aesthetic appearance and that these changes may be perceived differently by patients and dental professionals.

Through longitudinal follow-up and comparison of repeated digital scans, the study seeks to improve understanding of the occurrence of infraposition, its contributing factors, and its potential impact on the aesthetic outcome of implant-supported crowns over time.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

None

Disqualifiers

None

Trial population

The study population consists of adult patients receiving implant-supported prosthodontic treatment at specialist departments of prosthodontics within the Public Dental Health Service in Sweden. Participants are recruited from the Department of Prosthodontics, Public Dental Health Service, Region Västerbotten, Umeå, and from the Department of Prosthodontics, Folktandvården Eastmaninstitutet, Stockholm.

Trial design

Design model

Cohort

Time perspective

Other

Treatments tested in this trial

Not listed

Trial groups

60 Participants
are grouped into 1 trial group
Group A: Adults (≥18) with a single implant-supported crown in the anterior maxilla (canine-canine).

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Infraposition

Outcome Measure 1 Title: Frequency of Infraposition of Implant-Supported Single Crowns Description: Proportion of patients with infraposition of an implant-supported single crown relative to adjacent teeth in the anterior maxilla after crown delivery. Unit of Measure: Percentage (%) of patients Outcome Measure 2 Title: Extent of Infraposition of Implant-Supported Single Crowns Description: Displacement of adjacent teeth relative to implant-supported single crown in the anterior maxilla after crown delivery. Unit of Measure: Millimeters (mm) Outcome Measure 3 Title: Correlation between Extent of Infraposition and Contributing Factors Description: Correlation of infraposition extent (mm) with sex, age at implant placement, medical history/medication, facial height, orthodontic treatment, cause of tooth loss, smile line, temporary restoration, implant and restoration characteristics, augmentation procedures, implant position, and occlusion/articulation. Unit of Measure: Millimeters(mm)

Time frame
From enrollment until the end of the study, 10 years after the last study participant is recruited.

Secondary outcomes

1

Aesthetic evaluation

To evaluate aesthetic outcomes at baseline and follow-up using both subjective and objective evaluation methods. Secondary Outcome Measure 1 Title: Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Description: Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with implant-supported single crowns. Unit: VAS (0-100 mm) and ordinal scale (1-4) Tool: Patient questionnaire using a visual analogue scale and a four-level satisfaction scale Secondary Outcome Measure 2 Title: Clinician-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Description: Clinician-reported aesthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns. Unit: VAS (0-100 mm) and ordinal scale (1-4) Tool: Clinician assessment using VAS and a four-level ordinal scale Secondary Outcome Measure 3 Title: Objective Aesthetic Outcome (PES and WES) Description: Objective evaluation of peri-implant soft-tissue and crown-related aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns. Unit: PES and WES scores (0-10) Tool: Clinician assessment using PES and WES

Time frame
From enrollment until the end of the study, 10 years after the last study participant is recruited.

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Region Västerbotten

Lead sponsor

Umeå University

Collaborator