OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effect of the coronal thread size on the marginal bone loss around the fixtures, when both implants were provided with threads to the top of fixture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of implants, one with a macro-thread to the top of the fixture (A) and the other with a micro-thread to the top of the fixture (B), were placed adjacent to each other in the partially edentulous areas of 20 patients. Bone loss around each implant was analyzed after 1 year of functional loading. The bone losses after loading were compared using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone losses (A, 0.154 ± 0.144 mm; B, 0.125 ± 0.136 mm) were not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.669). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between implant with macro- and micro-neck thread in terms of marginal bone loss after 1 year of loading.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effect of the coronal thread size on the marginal bone loss around the fixtures, when both implants were provided with threads to the top of fixture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of implants, one with a macro-thread to the top of the fixture (A) and the other with a micro-thread to the top of the fixture (B), were placed adjacent to each other in the partially edentulous areas of 20 patients. Bone loss around each implant was analyzed after 1 year of functional loading. The bone losses after loading were compared using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone losses (A, 0.154 ± 0.144 mm; B, 0.125 ± 0.136 mm) were not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.669). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between implant with macro- and micro-neck thread in terms of marginal bone loss after 1 year of loading.
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