The Encode protocol for restoring single dental implants simplifies the implant impression technique by using a specially coded transmucosal healing abutment. It allows recording of the implant position without the removal of the healing abutment. This prospective randomized controlled clinical trial compares the 2-year clinical performance of the Encode and the conventional protocols for restoring single implants. A total of 47 implants were randomly allocated for restoration by the Encode (24 implants) and the conventional (23 implants) protocols. The implants were reviewed after 2 years to evaluate patient satisfaction, esthetics, prosthesis cleansability, mucosal health, bleeding on probing (BoP), metallic discoloration, probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone level (MBL), and quality of the proximal and occlusal contacts. In addition, all forms of complications were reported. Twenty Encode and 17 conventional implants were reviewed. The 2 protocols were comparable in all variables. A consistent increase of open proximal contacts was detected for the 2 protocols. Two Encode (10.0%) and 4 conventional (21.1%) crowns had screw loosening that was predominantly associated with cross-pins. This had led to the failure of 2 conventional crowns. Three Encode (15.0%) and 2 conventional (11.8%) crowns displayed ceramic chipping. The Encode and the conventional crowns had survival rates of 100.0% and 89.5%, respectively. From the biologic, prosthetic, and esthetic perspectives, the Encode and the conventional protocols provided a comparable clinical outcome over a 2-year duration.
Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single-Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Jaafar Abduo, Choy Lin Lee, Golnaz Sarfarazi, Bradley Xue, Roy Judge, Ivan Darby; Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single-Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial. J Oral Implantol 1 February 2021; 47 (1): 36–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00150
Download citation file: