OBJECTIVES: Around dental implants exists a "biologic width" of few millimeters that have to be preserved in order to not have adverse effect on soft and hard tissues around implant. Because the minimum distance between adjacent implants has not been determined yet, we therefore, decided to perform a retrospective study on a series of spiral family implants (SFIs) to verify the minimum inter-implants' distance that has an impact on crestal bone resorption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine implants were investigated with a mean follow-up of 14 months. Implant diameter was 3.75, 4.2, 5 and 6 mm in 11 (18.6%), 29 (49.2%), 17 (28.8%) and 2 (3.4%) SFIs. Implant length was shorter than 13 mm, equal to 13 mm and 16 mm in 23 (39%), 23 (39%) and 13 (22%) SFIs. Implants were inserted to replace 13 incisors (22%), 7 cuspids (11.9%), 30 premolars (50.8%) and 9 molars (15.3%). Twenty-seven fixtures were inserted in post-extractive sockets and the remaining 32 in healed bone; 36 (61%) were immediately loaded. In addition to the above mentioned implant-related factors, several host- and surgery-factors were investigated. Independent samples T-test, univariate and multivariate analysis were used to detect those variables associated with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Data were evaluated with a two steps statistical analysis (i.e. univariate and multivariate) after having grouped implants in two series: those with an implant-implant distance less of 1.8 mm and those with an implant-implants distance greater than 1.8 mm. In univariate analysis, post-extractive implants and number of prosthetic units were statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, only post-extractive implants have a significant adverse effect on crestal bone resorption. CONCLUSIONS: Adjacent implants inserted with a distance lower and higher than 1.8 mm have difference in crestal bone resorption but this difference is not statistically significant in a short period follow up. This could due to the specific implant used that has a reverse conical neck. No statistical difference was detected between implant subtypes. Post-extractive implant insertion is the major determinant in terms of peri-implant bone resorption in a short period follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: Around dental implants exists a "biologic width" of few millimeters that have to be preserved in order to not have adverse effect on soft and hard tissues around implant. Because the minimum distance between adjacent implants has not been determined yet, we therefore, decided to perform a retrospective study on a series of spiral family implants (SFIs) to verify the minimum inter-implants' distance that has an impact on crestal bone resorption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine implants were investigated with a mean follow-up of 14 months. Implant diameter was 3.75, 4.2, 5 and 6 mm in 11 (18.6%), 29 (49.2%), 17 (28.8%) and 2 (3.4%) SFIs. Implant length was shorter than 13 mm, equal to 13 mm and 16 mm in 23 (39%), 23 (39%) and 13 (22%) SFIs. Implants were inserted to replace 13 incisors (22%), 7 cuspids (11.9%), 30 premolars (50.8%) and 9 molars (15.3%). Twenty-seven fixtures were inserted in post-extractive sockets and the remaining 32 in healed bone; 36 (61%) were immediately loaded. In addition to the above mentioned implant-related factors, several host- and surgery-factors were investigated. Independent samples T-test, univariate and multivariate analysis were used to detect those variables associated with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Data were evaluated with a two steps statistical analysis (i.e. univariate and multivariate) after having grouped implants in two series: those with an implant-implant distance less of 1.8 mm and those with an implant-implants distance greater than 1.8 mm. In univariate analysis, post-extractive implants and number of prosthetic units were statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, only post-extractive implants have a significant adverse effect on crestal bone resorption. CONCLUSIONS: Adjacent implants inserted with a distance lower and higher than 1.8 mm have difference in crestal bone resorption but this difference is not statistically significant in a short period follow up. This could due to the specific implant used that has a reverse conical neck. No statistical difference was detected between implant subtypes. Post-extractive implant insertion is the major determinant in terms of peri-implant bone resorption in a short period follow-up.