Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Esthetic Outcome of Implant Supported Crowns With and Without Peri-Implant Conditioning Using Provisional Fixed
David Furze1, Ashley Byrne2, Sonia Alam3
1Private practice, Dorset, United Kingdom.
Background:
Achieving an optimal esthetic result using dental implants is challenging. Fixed implant-supported provisional crowns are often used to customize the emergence profile and to individualize the surrounding peri-implant soft tissue.
Purpose:
The objective of this study is to evaluate whether the use of a provisional implant-supported crown leads to an esthetic benefit on implants that are placed in the esthetic zone. The null hypothesis is that there is no-difference between the two study groups.
Material And Methods:
Twenty single implants (Bone Level, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were inserted in consecutive patients. After reopening, a randomization process assigned them to either cohort group 1: a provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning using the "dynamic compression technique" or cohort group 2: without a provisional. Implants were finally restored with an all-ceramic crown. Follow-up examinations were performed at 3 and 12 months including implant success and survival, clinical, and radiographic parameters.
Results:
After 1 year all implants successfully integrated, mean values of combined modPES and WES were 16.7 for group 1 and 10.5 for Group 2. This was statistically significant. Mean bone loss after 1 year was -0.09 and -0.08 for groups 1 and 2, respectively, without being statistically significant.
Conclusion:
A provisional phase with soft tissue conditioning does improve the final esthetic result.
