Hilario Pellicer-Chover1, Maria Peñarrocha-Diago2, Amparo Aloy-Prosper3, Luigi Canullo4, Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago5, David Peñarrocha-Oltra6. 1. Collaborating Professor of Master in Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 2. Associate Professor of Oral Surgery, Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 3. Associate Professor of Oral Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. Visiting Professor in Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 5. Chairman of Oral Surgery and Director of Master in Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 6. Assistant Professor, Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: dpenarrocha@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Preserving peri-implant bone and reducing exposure of the rough implant surface might influence long-term outcomes of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant clinical and radiologic parameters after crestal and subcrestal dental implant placement at 36 months' follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a randomized clinical trial involving partially edentulous patients in need of an implant-supported, partial fixed dental prosthesis or a single crown. Patients were randomized according to the implant insertion depth: implants placed approximately 2 mm below the bone crest (test group) or implants placed at bone crest level (control group). They were evaluated 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after prosthetic loading. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was the primary outcome, and the following secondary outcomes were registered: coronal bone changes, plaque index, probing depth, modified bleeding index, retraction and width of the peri-implant mucosa, and peri-implant health condition. Implant survival and success rates after 36 months' follow-up were calculated. RESULTS: The study comprised 128 patients (83 men and 45 women; mean age, 54.4 ± 12.2 years) and a total of 265 implants (133 in control group and 132 in test group). No statistically significant differences in the peri-implant clinical parameters were found. After 3 years' follow-up, 53.4% of the crestal implants and 25.8% of the subcrestal implants presented marginal bone loss, with a mean exposed rough surface of -0.2 ± 0.3 mm and -0.09 ± 0.1 mm, respectively (P = .001). The overall success rate was 99.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Crestal and subcrestal implants showed similar clinical outcomes 3 years after prosthetic loading. Significant differences were observed in the radiologic parameters, showing less peri-implant marginal bone loss with subcrestal implants.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Preserving peri-implant bone and reducing exposure of the rough implant surface might influence long-term outcomes of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant clinical and radiologic parameters after crestal and subcrestal dental implant placement at 36 months' follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a randomized clinical trial involving partially edentulouspatients in need of an implant-supported, partial fixed dental prosthesis or a single crown. Patients were randomized according to the implant insertion depth: implants placed approximately 2 mm below the bone crest (test group) or implants placed at bone crest level (control group). They were evaluated 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after prosthetic loading. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was the primary outcome, and the following secondary outcomes were registered: coronal bone changes, plaque index, probing depth, modified bleeding index, retraction and width of the peri-implant mucosa, and peri-implant health condition. Implant survival and success rates after 36 months' follow-up were calculated. RESULTS: The study comprised 128 patients (83 men and 45 women; mean age, 54.4 ± 12.2 years) and a total of 265 implants (133 in control group and 132 in test group). No statistically significant differences in the peri-implant clinical parameters were found. After 3 years' follow-up, 53.4% of the crestal implants and 25.8% of the subcrestal implants presented marginal bone loss, with a mean exposed rough surface of -0.2 ± 0.3 mm and -0.09 ± 0.1 mm, respectively (P = .001). The overall success rate was 99.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Crestal and subcrestal implants showed similar clinical outcomes 3 years after prosthetic loading. Significant differences were observed in the radiologic parameters, showing less peri-implant marginal bone loss with subcrestal implants.
Authors: Hilario Pellicer-Chover; Julio Rojo-Sanchís; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; José Viña-Almunia; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Maria Peñarrocha-Diago Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2020-09-01
Authors: Manuel Fernández-Domínguez; Victor Ortega-Asensio; Elena Fuentes-Numancia; Juan Manuel Aragoneses; Horia Mihail Barbu; María Piedad Ramírez-Fernández; Rafael Arcesio Delgado-Ruiz; José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Nahum Samet; Sergio Alexandre Gehrke Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: María Costa Castillo; Martín Laguna Martos; Rocío Marco Pitarch; Marina García Selva; Silvia Del Cid Rodríguez; Carla Fons-Badal; Rubén Agustín Panadero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390