Literature DB >> 23332435

A 5-year prospective 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, Arndt Happe, Joachim E Zöller, Stephan Eitner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this split-mouth study was to compare macro- and microstructure implant surfaces at the marginal bone level over five years of functional loading.
MATERIALS 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 December 2011. Marginal bone level was radiographically determined at six time points: implant placement (baseline), after the healing period, after six months, and at two years, three years, and five years follow-up.
RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 5.2 years (range: 5.1-5.4). The machined-neck group had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.5 mm (0.0-2.3) after the healing period, 1.1 mm (0.0-3.0) at two years follow-up, and 1.4 mm (0.0-2.9) at five years follow-up. The rough-surfaced microthreaded implant group had a mean bone loss of 0.1 mm (-0.4 to 2.0) after the healing period, 0.5 mm (0.0-2.1) at two years follow-up, and 0.7 mm (0.0-2.3) at five years follow-up. The two implant types showed significant differences in marginal bone levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Rough-surfaced microthreaded design caused significantly less loss of crestal bone levels under long-term functional loading in the mandible when compared to machined-neck implants.
Copyright © 2012 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alveolar bone loss; Split-mouth study; Surface properties

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23332435     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1010-5182            Impact factor:   2.078


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Influence of titanium implant macrodesign on peri-implantitis occurrence: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Dragana Rakasevic; Zoran Lazic; Ivan Soldatovic; Miodrag Scepanovic; Dragana Gabric
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 3.606

3.  The effect of age, gender, and insertion site on marginal bone loss around endosseous implants: results from a 3-year trial with premium implant system.

Authors:  Massimiliano Negri; Carlo Galli; Arianna Smerieri; Guido M Macaluso; Edoardo Manfredi; Giulia Ghiacci; Andrea Toffoli; Mauro Bonanini; Simone Lumetti
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Roodabeh Koodaryan; Ali Hafezeqoran
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  Influence of marginal bone loss on peri-implantitis: Systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Alba Carrasco-García; Lizett Castellanos-Cosano; José-Ramon Corcuera-Flores; Antonio Rodríguez-Pérez; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Guillermo Machuca-Portillo
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2019-11-01

6.  Effect of microthread design on the preservation of marginal bone around immediately placed implants: a 5-years prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hoori Aslroosta; Solmaz Akbari; Nima Naddafpour; Seyed Taha Adnaninia; Afshin Khorsand; Niusha Namadmalian Esfahani
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 2.757

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.