Literature DB >> 25830402

Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial.

Paolo Vigolo, Sabrina Mutinelli, Massimiliano Zaccaria, Edoardo Stellini.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The management of occlusal forces on implant restorations may influence their long-term prosthetic success. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare marginal bone level changes around adjacent splinted and nonsplinted implants, functionally loaded with cemented restorations, up to 10 years in maxillae.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 2002 and 2003, all patients who received three adjacent implants in a private office and a university setting were included in this study. All implants featured an external-hexagon design and were placed in the posterior maxilla. Implants in the left maxilla were randomly selected to be restored with splinted cemented restorations; maxillary right implants were restored with nonsplinted cemented restorations. Marginal bone resorption was measured with intraoral radiographs yearly over a period of at least 10 years after placement of abutments and restorations. The amount of bone loss in each group was analyzed with the two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test because variable bone loss was normally distributed at the fifth year only.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two implants were placed in 44 patients. Three implants failed at stage-two surgery. Five years after initial loading, two patients moved away and were lost to follow-up (6 implants in total); three additional patients did not complete the study (9 implants in total). Of the remaining 114 implants, 60 left implants were restored with splinted cemented restorations and 54 right implants were restored with nonsplinted cemented restorations. At 10 years, the splinted group showed a mean of 1.2 mm (interquartile range: 0.2 mm) of bone loss; the nonsplinted group showed 1.3 mm (interquartile range: 0.2 mm).
CONCLUSION: A significant difference in bone loss was seen between the two groups. However, the difference of 0.1 mm was not considered clinically meaningful.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25830402     DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3837

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  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.  Exploring the microbiome of healthy and diseased peri-implant sites using Illumina sequencing.

Authors:  Ignacio Sanz-Martin; Janet Doolittle-Hall; Ricardo P Teles; Michele Patel; Georgios N Belibasakis; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Flavia R F Teles
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 8.728

3.  Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Sara Hussain Alhammadi; Girvan Burnside; Alexander Milosevic
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  Effects of Implant-Abutment Connection Type and Inter-Implant Distance on Inter-Implant Bone Stress and Microgap: Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Takashi Matsuoka; Tamaki Nakano; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Shinji Ono; Shota Watanabe; Takumi Sato; Hirofumi Yatani
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 3.623

5.  Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading.

Authors:  Prisca Walter; Miha Pirc; Alexis Ioannidis; Jürg Hüsler; Ronald E Jung; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 5.021

6.  Comparison of marginal bone loss between internal- and external-connection dental implants in posterior areas without periodontal or peri-implant disease.

Authors:  Dae-Hyun Kim; Hyun Ju Kim; Sungtae Kim; Ki-Tae Koo; Tae-Il Kim; Yang-Jo Seol; Yong-Moo Lee; Young Ku; In-Chul Rhyu
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 2.614

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.