José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores1, Manuel Pérez-Fierro2, Andrés Blanco-Carrión3, Daniel Torres-Lagares4, Lizett Castellanos-Cosano5, Guillermo Machuca-Portillo6. 1. PhD, DDS, Associate Professor, Master's Program of Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain. 2. DDS, Associate Professor, Master's Program of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain. 3. PhD, MD, DDS, Full Professor and Chairman, Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 4. PhD, DDS, Full Professor, Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain. 5. PhD, DDS, Associate Professor, Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain. 6. PhD, MD, DDS, Full Professor and Chairman, Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients' medical records. Statistical method: Spearman's correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman's post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson's index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients' medical records. Statistical method: Spearman's correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman's post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson's index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs. Copyright:
Authors: Eduardo Anitua; Jose M Errazquin; José de Pedro; Pedro Barrio; Leire Begoña; Gorka Orive Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.123
Authors: Marco Esposito; Maria Gabriella Grusovin; Pietro Felice; Georgios Karatzopoulos; Helen V Worthington; Paul Coulthard Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 3.123
Authors: Rafael Juan Blanes; Jean Pierre Bernard; Zulema Maria Blanes; Urs Christoph Belser Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.977