Caroliene Meijndert

27 Single implants in the aesthetic region preceded by local ridge augmentation that non-attendance was independent of treatment result and patient satisfaction. Dropout was distributed over the treatment groups as follows: 2 non-attendance in the group with chin bone, 2 implant loss and 5 non-attendance in the group with chinbone and membrane, and 2 implant loss and 10 non-attendance in the group with a bone substitute and membrane. Clinical outcomes After 10 years, implant survival rate for the total group was 95.7% and did not differ significantly between the groups (group chin bone with implant survival rate of 100%; group chin bone and membrane and group bone substitute and membrane both with an implant survival rate of 93.5%). During the 10 years’ follow-up, in 9 patients new final crowns had to be made due to porcelain chipping. No loosening of the cemented crowns took place, nor loosening of the screw of the abutments. Together with 2 patients who suffered from implant loss after 2 and 6 years (and crown loss as a consequence), this results in a 10-years crown survival rate of 87.9%. Plaque index, Bleeding index and Gingiva index scored within the healthy spectrum in all groups ( Table 2 ). Mean pocket probing depths were calculated for the buccal, palatal and approximal site (mesial and distal site combined) and are presented in Table 3 . Mean pocket probing depth was within 4 mm at T 120 . There was no significant difference between the 3 treatment modalities, although the group with a bone substitute and membrane tended to have deeper pockets than both chin bone groups. This became apparent at the buccal site at T 120 where probing depth was significantly deeper in this group compared with the chin bone groups (P = 0.002). Marginal bone level and marginal gingiva level Mean marginal bone level change was calculated separately for the mesial and distal side of the implant and is depicted in Table 4 . In 10 years, total marginal bone loss at the mesial side was 0.48±1.19mmand at the distal side 0.30±1.24mm, with no significant differences between the groups. Whereas 72 patients were seen at the 10-years’ follow-up, marginal gingival level could not be evaluated for all patients. As the incisal edge of the implant crown was used as a reference line for measurement, patients in whom a new crown was made during follow-up (n = 9) had to be excluded for comparison of marginal gingival levels. Mean mesial, buccal and distal gingiva level changes were calculated separately and are depicted in Table 5 . In 10 years total marginal gingiva level change at the mesial side was a gain of 0.53±0.89 mm, a loss of 0.30±0.78 mm at the buccal side and a gain of 0.45±0.90 mm at the distal side, with no significant differences between the groups. 2