Maria Bateli1, Wael Att, Jörg R Strub. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany. maria.bateli@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to evaluate the effectiveness of various implant neck configurations in the preservation of marginal bone level as well as to identify the available scientific evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online and hand searches of the literature published from 1976 through 2009 were conducted to identify studies dealing with modifications in the implant neck area and marginal bone loss for at least a 5-year observation period. The search terms that were used, alone or in combination, were "implant neck," "marginal bone loss," "neck design," "bone resorption," "bone remodeling," and "implant collar." Relevant studies were selected according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 3,517 relevant titles and revealed eight different implant neck configurations and/or methods suggested for the preservation of marginal bone. These methods included changes in implant neck length and design, implant surface characteristics, implant diameter, and/or insertion depth; the addition of microthreads; the use of one-piece implants; and the concept of platform switching. After subsequent filtering, 20 studies were finally selected and involved the following methods: the use of microthreads (1 study); modifications in implant surface characteristics (11 studies), implant diameter (4 studies), or insertion depth (2 studies); the use of one-piece implants (3 studies); and platform switching (1 study). Because of the heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to analyze the data statistically. No evidence was found regarding the effectiveness of any specific modification in the implant neck area in preserving marginal bone or preventing marginal bone loss. CONCLUSION: The current literature provides insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of different implant neck configurations in the preservation of marginal bone. Long-term randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to elucidate the effects of such modifications.
PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to evaluate the effectiveness of various implant neck configurations in the preservation of marginal bone level as well as to identify the available scientific evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online and hand searches of the literature published from 1976 through 2009 were conducted to identify studies dealing with modifications in the implant neck area and marginal bone loss for at least a 5-year observation period. The search terms that were used, alone or in combination, were "implant neck," "marginal bone loss," "neck design," "bone resorption," "bone remodeling," and "implant collar." Relevant studies were selected according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 3,517 relevant titles and revealed eight different implant neck configurations and/or methods suggested for the preservation of marginal bone. These methods included changes in implant neck length and design, implant surface characteristics, implant diameter, and/or insertion depth; the addition of microthreads; the use of one-piece implants; and the concept of platform switching. After subsequent filtering, 20 studies were finally selected and involved the following methods: the use of microthreads (1 study); modifications in implant surface characteristics (11 studies), implant diameter (4 studies), or insertion depth (2 studies); the use of one-piece implants (3 studies); and platform switching (1 study). Because of the heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to analyze the data statistically. No evidence was found regarding the effectiveness of any specific modification in the implant neck area in preserving marginal bone or preventing marginal bone loss. CONCLUSION: The current literature provides insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of different implant neck configurations in the preservation of marginal bone. Long-term randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to elucidate the effects of such modifications.
Authors: Miha Pirc; Oliver Harbeck; Vitor M Sapata; Jürg Hüsler; Ronald E Jung; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Benedikt C Spies; Maria Bateli; Ghada Ben Rahal; Marin Christmann; Kirstin Vach; Ralf-Joachim Kohal Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.411