Literature DB >> 26459570

Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed reconstructions - results at 1 year of loading.

Sabine Ebler1, Alexis Ioannidis1, Ronald E Jung1, Christoph H F Hämmerle1, Daniel S Thoma1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyze clinical, esthetic, radiographic, and prosthetic outcomes of implants and implant-supported reconstructions using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant abutment junctions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 64 patients in need of dental implant therapy with fixed reconstructions were consecutively enrolled. They were randomly assigned to either one of two implant systems (S1: Astra Tech Osseospeed and S2: Straumann Bone Level). Baseline (day of loading) and 1-year measurements included demographics, radiographic, clinical, biologic, prosthetic, and esthetic outcomes. All data were analyzed at the patient level and at the implant level. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to detect differences in continuous variables between two independent groups.
RESULTS: Ninety-seven implants (S1 = 54, S2 = 43) were placed and loaded with fixed reconstructions in 64 patients. No implant was lost during the 1-year observation period resulting in a 100% survival rate for both implant systems. At the patient level, the mean marginal bone level at implant insertion was -1.30 mm (SD ± 1.00 mm) for S1 and -1.26 mm (±1.22 mm) for S2 (negative values indicating bone levels coronal to the implant shoulder). At the time of loading, these distances measured 0.29 mm (±0.44 mm) for S1 and 0.22 mm (±0.43 mm) for S2. At the 1-year follow-up, these distances were 0.37 mm (±0.39 mm) for S1 and 0.39 mm (±1.02 mm) for S2. Technical complications of the reconstructions only occurred in Group S1, with a rate of 12% (patient level) (P > 0.05). Biologic complications were observed at a rate of 6% (S1) and 3.2% (S2) at the patient level (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both implant systems revealed 100% survival rates and minimal changes of the marginal bone levels during 1 year of loading. Few technical and biologic complications occurred. Therefore, both implant systems can be recommended for fixed reconstructions.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  X-ray; dental implants; fixed, partial, denture; survival

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26459570     DOI: 10.1111/clr.12721

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  4 in total

1.  Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols-a pilot study.

Authors:  David E Simmons; Pooja Maney; Austin G Teitelbaum; Susan Billiot; Lomesh J Popat; A Archontia Palaiologou
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2017-05-02

2.  Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review.

Authors:  Lucas Henrique Telles; Fernando Freitas Portella; Elken Gomes Rivaldo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Saverio Cosola; Simone Marconcini; Michela Boccuzzi; Giovanni Battista Menchini Fabris; Ugo Covani; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; David Peñarrocha-Oltra
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.