Literature DB >> 19302236

Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs.

Hans-Joachim Nickenig1, Manfred Wichmann, Karl Andreas Schlegel, Emeka Nkenke, Stephan Eitner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this split-mouth study was to compare macro- and microstructure implant surfaces at the marginal bone level during a stress-free healing period and under functional loading.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January to February 2006, 133 implants (70 rough-surfaced microthreaded implants and 63 machined-neck implants) were inserted in the mandible of 34 patients with Kennedy Class I residual dentitions and followed until February 2008. The marginal bone level was radiographically determined, using digitized panoramic radiographs, at four time points: at implant placement (baseline level), after the healing period, after 6 months of functional loading, and at the end of follow-up.
RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 1.9 (range: 1.9-2.1) years. The machined-neck group had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.5 mm (range: 0-2.3) after the healing period, 0.8 mm after 6 months (range: 0-2.4), and 1.1 mm (range: 0-3) at the end of follow-up. The rough-surfaced microthreaded implant group had a mean bone loss of 0.1 mm (range: -0.4-2) after the healing period, 0.4 mm (range: 0-2.1) after 6 months, and 0.5 mm (range: 0-2.1) at the end of follow-up. The two implant types showed significant differences in marginal bone levels (healing period: P=0.01; end of follow-up: P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to machined-neck or rough-surfaced microthreaded implants showed that implants with the microthreaded design caused minimal changes in crestal bone levels during healing (stress-free) and under functional loading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19302236     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01684.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  11 in total

1.  Clinical assessment of submerged vs non-submerged implants placed in pristine bone.

Authors:  P Cardelli; F Cecchetti; M Montani; E Bramanti; C Arcuri
Journal:  Oral Implantol (Rome)       Date:  2014-05-19

2.  Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Muhamed Ajanović; Adis Hamzić; Sead Redžepagić; Alma Kamber-Ćesir; Lejla Kazazić; Selma Tosum
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2015-06

3.  Effect of loading time on the survival rate of anodic oxidized implants: prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Seok-Gyu Kim; Pil-Young Yun; Hyun-Sik Park; June-Sung Shim; Jung-Won Hwang; Young-Kyun Kim
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 1.904

4.  An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study.

Authors:  Lizett Castellanos-Cosano; Alba Carrasco-García; José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores; Javier Silvestre-Rangil; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Guillermo Machuca-Portillo
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 2.634

Review 5.  WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants.

Authors:  Marco Esposito; Yasmin Ardebili; Helen V Worthington
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-10

6.  Marginal Bone Level Evaluation after Functional Loading Around Two Different Dental Implant Designs.

Authors:  Ko-Ning Ho; Eisner Salamanca; Hsi-Kuai Lin; Sheng-Yang Lee; Wei-Jen Chang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  What do sales data tell us about implant survival?

Authors:  Rudolf Seemann; Alexander Jirku; Florian Wagner; Arno Wutzl
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evaluation of a New Dental Implant Cervical Design in Comparison with a Conventional Design in an Experimental American Foxhound Model.

Authors:  Maria Ángeles Pérez-Albacete Martínez; Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez; José Eduardo Maté Sánchez De Val; María Luisa Ramos Oltra; Manuel Fernández Domínguez; Jose Luis Calvo Guirado
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 3.623

9.  Comparison of interdental papilla around single implants in the anterior maxilla between two implant systems: A cohort study.

Authors:  Masoumeh Khoshhal; Fariborz Vafaei; Mahsa Najafi; Masoumeh Nikkhah
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2018-03-14

10.  Bone Loss Evaluation by Cone Beam Computed Tomography Postdental Implant Placement: An Original Research.

Authors:  Asif Iqbal; Amit Shivakant Vathare; R Ramkumar Karthic; Anupama Pottom; A Anitha; Krishna Kumari Blsg; Dalli Bharath Simha Reddy
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2022-07-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.