Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(04): 497-502
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697216
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Crestal Bone Changes in Different Implants Designs: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Gustavo M. Caetano
1   Department of Dentistry, Lutheran University of Brazil, Canoas-RS, Brazil
,
Patrícia Pauletto
2   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil
,
Luis A. Mezzomo
2   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil
,
Elken G. Rivaldo
1   Department of Dentistry, Lutheran University of Brazil, Canoas-RS, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Several modifications, such as changes in the implant–abutment connection, have been suggested in studies on dental implants to better preserve the peri-implant bone level. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare crestal bone level changes between two different implant designs—tissue level (TL) and bone level (BL).

Materials and Methods The sample comprised 18 patients, on whom a total of 30 hydrophilic tissue- and bone level implants were placed (SLActive, Straumann Institut AG, Basel, Switzerland), in the posterior region of the maxilla or the mandible. Impressions were taken after 45 days of healing. Then, cemented-retained metalloceramic crowns were fabricated and installed. Marginal bone level changes were assessed by the paralleling technique of periapical radiographies, on both mesial and distal aspects of each implant, at the moment of the implant placement and after 1 year of loading. Photoshop software was used to perform linear measurements by a single and calibrated examiner.

Statistical Analysis The Mann–Whitney test at a 5% significance level was used to compare the bone changes among the implants assessed.

Results A significantly lower (p = 0.048) bone remodeling was observed on bone level implants (0.05 mm), when compared to tissue level implants (0.47 mm; p = 0.048). The average marginal bone level changes at the distal aspect did not show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.325).

Conclusions Tissue level implants presented greater bone loss in the mesial surface than bone level implants. Both designs presented stable and clinically acceptable bone crests.

Keywords

bone level - dental implant - marginal bone - tissue level
 

  • References

  • 1 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1 (01) 11-25
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P. et al. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14 (05) 639-645
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Brocard D, Barthet P, Baysse E. et al. A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI implants: a 7-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15 (05) 691-700
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Östman P-O, Hellman M, Sennerby L. Ten years later. Results from a prospective single-centre clinical study on 121 oxidized (TiUnite™) Brånemark implants in 46 patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (06) 852-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rabel A, Köhler SG, Schmidt-Westhausen AM. Clinical study on the primary stability of two dental implant systems with resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2007; 11 (03) 257-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6 (02) 95-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Higginbottom FL, Hermann JS, Makins SR, Buser D. Evaluation of an endosseous titanium implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface in the canine mandible: radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7 (03) 240-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T. et al. Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1999; 45 (02) 75-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lin M-I, Shen Y-W, Huang H-L, Hsu J-T, Fuh L-J. A retrospective study of implant-abutment connections on crestal bone level. J Dent Res 2013; 92 (12) Suppl 202S-207S
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L. Prospective clinical evaluation of 1920 Morse taper connection implants: results after 4 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 (03) 254-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ganeles J, Zöllner A, Jackowski J, ten Bruggenkate C, Beagle J, Guerra F. Immediate and early loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: 1-year results from a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19 (11) 1119-1128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Valderrama P, Bornstein MM, Jones AA, Wilson Jr. TG, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Effects of implant design on marginal bone changes around early loaded, chemically modified, sandblasted Acid-etched-surfaced implants: a histologic analysis in dogs. J Periodontol 2011; 82 (07) 1025-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kumar VV, Sagheb K, Kämmerer PW, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. Retrospective clinical study of marginal bone level changes with two different screw-implant types: comparison between tissue level (TE) and bone level (BL) implant. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2014; 13 (03) 259-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hartman GA, Cochran DL. Initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. J Periodontol 2004; 75 (04) 572-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS. et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003; 82 (03) 232-237
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006; 26 (01) 9-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Weber HP, Crohin CC, Fiorellini JP. A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11 (02) 144-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Darby I, Heitz F, Chen S. Preservation of crestal bone by implant design. A comparative study in minipigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 (03) 243-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Alomrani AN, Hermann JS, Jones AA, Buser D, Schoolfield J, Cochran DL. The effect of a machined collar on coronal hard tissue around titanium implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20 (05) 677-686
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL. et al. The influence of non-matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. J Periodontol 2008; 79 (02) 260-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hansson S, Norton M. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone-anchored implants. A mathematical model. J Biomech 1999; 32 (08) 829-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hänggi MP, Hänggi DC, Schoolfield JD, Meyer J, Cochran DL, Hermann JS. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: a retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. J Periodontol 2005; 76 (05) 791-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 DI Girolamo M, Calcaterra R, DI Gianfilippo R, Arcuri C, Baggi L. Bone level changes around platform switching and platform matching implants: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2016; 9 (01) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH. Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (10) 1350-1366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002; 73 (10) 1111-1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Gröndahl K, Engquist E, Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15 (04) 413-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar