RSS-Feed abonnieren
Bitte kopieren Sie die angezeigte URL und fügen sie dann in Ihren RSS-Reader ein.
https://www.thieme-connect.de/rss/thieme/de/10.1055-s-00042133.xml
PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(01): 047-052
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688538
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688538
Original Article
Does Implant-Abutment Interface affect Marginal Bone Levels around Implants?
Weitere Informationen
Publikationsverlauf
Publikationsdatum:
06. Juni 2019 (online)
Abstract
Objective The use of dental implants with different types of surface roughness and implant-abutment interface has brought about a situation of marginal bone loss. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze and compare marginal bone levels of different types of osseointegrated dental implants with platform switch (Group A: Ankylos, Mannheim, Germany) and platform match (Group B: Dentsply Xive, Mannheim, Germany, and Group C: MIS Implant Technologies, Karmiel, Israel).
Materials and Methods One hundred and seven patients (52 men and 55 women) with a mean age of 54.79 (standard deviation ± 12.35) years and a total of 321 dental implants (Group A, n = 198; Group B, n = 58; and Group C, n = 65) placed in a private practice between April 2006 and May 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. In addition to demographic information and implant characteristics, marginal bone levels were evaluated by Image J (Wayne Rasband, National Institute of Health, Maryland) program.
Results The mean age of all patients was 54.79 ± 12.35 years, and 51.5% of them were women. Implants supporting fixed bridge were most commonly used in all groups (65%), whereas only 20% were restored with a single crown and 15% with overdentures. In total, 47.5% of all implants showed no marginal bone loss. Mean bone loss in Group A was significantly lower (0.81 ± 1.60 mm) as compared to Group B (1.58 ± 1.59 mm) and Group C (1.18 ± 1.36) (p < 0.005).
Conclusion Among different types of dental implants, platform switch seems to preserve marginal bone levels and increase the long-term success of dental implants.
-
References
- 1 Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15 (01) 76-94
- 2 Rizzi M, Migliario M, Rocchetti V, Tonello S, Renò F. Pre-odontoblast proliferation induced by near-infrared laser stimulation. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2016; 20 (05) 794-800
- 3 Brauner E, Guarino G, Jamshir S. et al. Evaluation of highly porous dental implants in postablative oral and maxillofacial cancer patients: A Prospective pilot clinical case series report. Implant Dent 2015; 24 (05) 631-637
- 4 Kiss G, Sebõk B, Szabó PJ, Joób AF, Szabó G. Surface analytical studies of maxillofacial implants: influence of the preoperational treatment and the human body on the surface properties of retrieved implants. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (03) 1062-1067
- 5 Ogle OE. Implant surface material, design, and osseointegration. Dent Clin North Am 2015; 59 (02) 505-520
- 6 Barfeie A, Wilson J, Rees J. Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. Br Dent J 2015; 218 (05) E9
- 7 Lazzara R. Implant system offers the advantage of shorter loading time. Dent Implantol Update 1999; 10 (03) 17-19
- 8 Lang NP, Jepsen S. Working Group 4. Implant surfaces and design (Working Group 4). Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 (Suppl. 04) 228-231
- 9 Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T. Definition and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 (08) Suppl 286-291
- 10 Lang NP, Berglundh T. Working Group 4 of Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. Periimplant diseases: where are we now? Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 (Suppl. 11) 178-181
- 11 Gheisari R, Eatemadi H, Alavian A. Comparison of the marginal bone loss in one-stage versus two-stage implant surgery. J Dent (Shiraz) 2017; 18 (04) 272-276
- 12 Tallarico M, Vaccarella A, Marzi GC. Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2011; 4 (01) 13-20
- 13 Caricasulo R, Malchiodi L, Ghensi P, Fantozzi G, Cucchi A. The influence of implant-abutment connection to peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20 (04) 653-664
- 14 Kim DH, Kim HJ, Kim S. et al. Comparison of marginal bone loss between internal- and external-connection dental implants in posterior areas without periodontal or peri-implant disease. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2018; 48 (02) 103-113
- 15 Canullo L, Omori Y, Amari Y, Iannello G, Pesce P. Five-year cohort prospective study on single implants in the esthetic area restored using one-abutment/one-time prosthetic approach. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20 (05) 668-673
- 16 Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006; 26 (01) 9-17
- 17 Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF. A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (02) 299-308
- 18 Alonso-González R, Aloy-Prósper A, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching implant insertion depth: An update. J Clin Exp Dent 2012; 4 (03) e173-e179
- 19 Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL. et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: The international congress of oral implantologists (ICOI) pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent 2008; 17 (01) 5-15
- 20 Koldsland OC, Scheie AA, Aass AM. Prevalence of peri-implantitis related to severity of the disease with different degrees of bone loss. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (02) 231-238
- 21 Mir-Mari J, Mir-Orfila P, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Gay-Escoda C. Prevalence of peri-implant diseases. A cross-sectional study based on a private practice environment. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39 (05) 490-494
- 22 Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber HP, Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23 (06) 1109-1116
- 23 Eckert SE, Wollan PC. Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79 (04) 415-421
- 24 Weber HP, Buser D, Fiorellini JP, Williams RC. Radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels adjacent to nonsubmerged titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992; 3 (04) 181-188
- 25 Peñarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchis JM, Guarinos J, Balaguer J. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location, and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 (06) 861-867
- 26 Ozgur GO, Kazancioglu HO, Demirtas N, Deger S, Ak G. Risk factors associated with implant marginal bone loss: a retrospective 6-year follow-up study. Implant Dent 2016; 25 (01) 122-127
- 27 Mijiritsky E, Mazor Z, Lorean A, Levin L. Implant diameter and length influence on survival: interim results during the first 2 years of function of implants by a single manufacturer. Implant Dent 2013; 22 (04) 394-398
- 28 Ivanoff CJ, Gröndahl K, Sennerby L, Bergström C, Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14 (02) 173-180
- 29 Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P. et al. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14 (05) 639-645
- 30 Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13 (02) 204-211
- 31 Rammelsberg P, Lorenzo-Bermejo J, Kappel S. Effect of prosthetic restoration on implant survival and success. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (10) 1296-1302
- 32 Canullo L, Fedele GR, Iannello G, Jepsen S. Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a randomized-controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21 (01) 115-121
- 33 Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale?. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (05) 581-584
- 34 Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH. Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (10) 1350-1366
- 35 Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100 (06) 422-431
- 36 Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008; 28 (04) 347-355