Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

A Practical, Descriptive Comparison of Seven Guided Implant Surgery Planning Software Using Clinical Scenarios.

Journal of dentistry·2026

Same author

Immersive Virtual Reality with Haptic Simulators for Dental Education: A User Acceptance Study in Poland.

European journal of dentistry·2026

Same author

Substituted cysteine accessibility method (SCAM) in membrane transporters studies: Learn from lactose permease.

Biochimie·2026

Same author

Misquoting of Scientific Literature.

Australian dental journal·2026

Same author

The Effect of Crown Height and Retentive Height of Abutment on the Fracture Resistance of Fatigued Monolithic Zirconia Anterior Implant Crowns-An In Vitro Study.

Clinical oral implants research·2026

Same author

Comparison of Implant Monolithic Zirconia and CAD/CAM Metal-Ceramic Crowns at the Insertion and Post-Insertion Review Visits: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

The International journal of prosthodontics·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 22, 2026

Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness

Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness

Published on: March 14, 2025

A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One-year

Jaafar Abduo¹, Lakshmi Gade¹, Harjot Gill¹

¹Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

|September 24, 2017

Summary

The Encode protocol offers comparable 1-year clinical outcomes to conventional methods for single dental implants, showing similar results in esthetics, patient satisfaction, and biological measures like marginal bone level.

Keywords:

CAD/CAM abutment clinical study computer-assisted implant titanium

More Related Videos

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 22, 2026

Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness

Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness

Published on: March 14, 2025

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

Area of Science:

Dental Implantology
Prosthodontics
Biomaterials Science

Background:

The Encode protocol was developed as a simplified approach for dental implant restoration.
This study evaluates its clinical performance against traditional methods.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the 1-year clinical outcomes of the Encode protocol versus the conventional protocol for single implant restorations.
Key outcome measures include esthetics, patient satisfaction, and biological parameters.

Main Methods:

Forty-seven implants were randomized into Encode (24) and conventional (23) groups.
Evaluated outcomes after 1 year included esthetics, patient satisfaction, contacts, marginal bone level (MBL), probing pocket depth (PPD), and mucosal health.

Main Results:

A total of 41 implants (22 Encode, 19 conventional) were assessed after 1 year.
Both protocols demonstrated favorable esthetics, patient satisfaction, and prosthesis cleansability.
Similar marginal bone loss (Encode: 0.71mm, Conventional: 0.78mm) and probing pocket depth changes were observed.

Conclusions:

The Encode protocol is comparable to the conventional protocol for single implant restorations.
This comparability spans biological, prosthetic, and esthetic aspects after one year.