Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between adjacent dental implants, an interimplant distance (IID) of at least 3 mm has been recommended to avoid resorbing the interproximal crestal bone. The effect of a 2 mm IID on crestal bone loss has been investigated but the literature is scarce when it comes to an IID of 1 mm. There is a need to document such clinical situations when they occur and elucidate if such a narrow IID is deleterious or not to the interproximal crest. The present case deals with an IID of 1 mm in the premolar area where, for the first time, the fate of an interimplant crest is reported after a 10-year follow-up. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old patient attended with 2 hopeless maxillary premolars. The mesio-distal space available for implant rehabilitation was too narrow to receive standard diameter implants and keep an inter-implant distance (IID) of 3 mm as recommended by accepted guidelines. A protocol of immediate implant placement and provisionalization involving 2 implants of Ø 3.5 mm was implemented; placement in the extraction sockets resulted in an IID of 1 mm. After 3 months of healing the final prosthesis was delivered; the patient has been followed for 10 years now. Surprisingly, the findings showed that the interimplant crest was maintained 1.40 mm coronal to the shoulder of the neck of the implants. Bone completely filled the space between the prosthetic concave abutments and the interproximal papilla was closing the embrasure. The literature reports only 2 experimental studies involving a 1 mm IID; both showed that this did not lead to the resorption of the interproximal bone. CONCLUSIONS: Unexpectedly, the present case with an IID of 1 mm did not lead to the resorption of the interproximal bone after 10 years. It is speculated that the reason for that is due to the implants displaying an internal conical connection, the platform-switching feature, concave abutments and subcrestal placement. The fate of the interproximal crest of implants placed with an IID of 1 mm lacks scientific evidence. More studies are warranted to elucidate this question in order to propose the best implant treatment in cases displaying a limited mesio-distal space.