PMID- 21594215 OWN - Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH CI - Copyright Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH OCI - Copyright Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH TA - Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) JT - International Journal of Oral Implantology IS - 2631-6439 (Electronic) IS - 2631-6420 (Print) IP - 1 VI - 4 PST - ppublish DP - 2011 PG - 13-20 LA - en TI - Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial FAU - Tallarico, Marco AU - Tallarico M FAU - Vaccarella, Anna AU - Vaccarella A FAU - Marzi, Gian Carlo AU - Marzi G CN - OT - bone crest level OT - dental implants OT - early loading OT - one-stage placement OT - two-stage placement AB - Aim: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement. Materials and methods: Forty-seven patients were randomly allocated to 1- or 2-stage treatment groups immediately after implant placement. Twenty-nine patients received 38 1-stage early loaded implants and 18 patients received 51 2-stage early loaded implants. Outcome measures were failures of implants and/or prosthesis, complications, pain score, amount of analgesic consumption and periimplant bone level changes at implant loading (12 weeks) and at the 1-year follow-up. Results: After 1 year, no dropout occurred. In the 1-stage group, 2 implants (1 patient) failed to osseointegrate and the implant-supported prosthesis could not be placed, versus none in the 2-stage group. Two complications were reported in the 1-stage group versus only one in the 2-stage group. Pain score measurements, analgesic consumption and peri-implant bone level did not show any significant difference between the two groups. All patients would undergo the same procedures again. Conclusions: The submerged technique is not a prerequisite for osseointegration, though 1-stage implant placement might be at a slightly higher risk for early failures. AID - 855651