Five Year Clinical, Radiographic and Soft Tissue Profilometric Outcomes at Two Narrow-Diameter Implants to Replace Missing Maxillary Lateral Incisors.

Objectives To compare the 5-year outcomes in patients with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors (MLIs) rehabilitated with two different narrow-diameter implants (NDIs).Materials And Methods One-hundred patients rehabilitated with a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia single-unit crown on either a Ø2.9 mm (Test) (n = 50) or a Ø3.3 mm (Control) (n = 50) (T1) were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up (T2, T3, T4). Clinical, radiographic, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), biological/technical complications, and esthetic ones were recorded. After the acquisition of intraoral optical scans (IOS) (T4), three different soft tissue profilometric profiles (linear, concave, and convex) were identified.Results At T4, 66 patients (n = 33 per group; drop-outs n = 33; implant survival rate: 99%; early implant loss n = 1) were evaluated. Between T1 and T4, crestal bone level (CBL) changes at Ø3.3 and at Ø2.9 mm implants were comparable (difference: 0.24 mm; p > 0.05). Despite the positive recorded esthetic scores (i.e., Score 1-2), at T4, 9.1% of Ø2.9 mm versus 18.2% of Ø3.3 mm implants displayed alveolar process deficiency (Score 3). The frequency of soft tissue profilometric profiles was linear (21.2% vs. 40.6%), concave (72.7% vs. 37.5%) and convex (6.1% vs. 21.9%) (Ø2.9 mm vs. Ø3.3 mm group [p > 0.01]). Complications included decementation, ceramic chipping of the incisal edge (3× each), abutment loosening (1×) and a buccal fistula (3×). The statistically significant improved PROMs values at T1 remained stable up to T4 for both groups (p > 0.05).Conclusion The use of Ø2.9 or Ø3.3 mm implants showed comparable positive long-term results. Clinicians can rely on both implant types to replace congenitally missing MLIs.