Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(03): 317-322
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_38_17
Original Article
European Journal of Dentistry

Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial

Naser Sargolzaie
1   Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
,
Hamid Reza Arab
1   Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
,
Marzieh Mohammadi Moghaddam
1   Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the effect of implant body form (cylindrical and conical implants) on crestal bone levels during 6 months' follow-up after loading. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 SPI implants (19 conical implants/13 cylindrical implants) were randomly placed in 12 male patients using a submerged approach. None of the patients had compromising medical conditions or parafunctional habits. Periapical radiographs using the parallel technique were taken after clinical loading and 6 months later. Clinical indices including pocket depth and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded on 6-month follow-up. Data were analyzed by independent samples t-test and Chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05. Results: Six months after loading, crestal bone loss was 0.84 (±0.29) mm around the cylindrical implants and 0.73 (±0.62) mm around the conical types, which was not significantly different (P = 0.54). Pocket depth around the cylindrical and conical implants was 2.61 (±0.45) mm and 2.36 (±0.44) mm, respectively (P = 0.13). BOP was observed among 53.8% and 47.4% of the cylindrical implants and conical (P = 0.13). Bone loss and pocket depth in the maxilla and mandible had no significant difference (P = 0.46 and P = 0.09, respectively). Conclusion: In this study, although bone loss and clinical parameters were slightly higher in the cylindrical implants, there was no significant difference between the conical- and cylindrical-shaped implants.

Key words:

Alveolar bone loss - conical implant - cylindrical implant - dental implants
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski JB, Carr AB, Naert I, Wennerberg A. Quality of dental implants. Int Dent J 2003; 53/6 (Suppl. 02) 409-43
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Behnia H, Motamedian SR, Kiani MT, Morad G, Khojasteh A. Accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomographic measurements of the bone labial and palatal to the maxillary anterior teeth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 1249-55
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Morad G, Behnia H, Motamedian SR, Shahab S, Gholamin P, Khosraviani K. et al. Thickness of labial alveolar bone overlying healthy maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25: 1985-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vohra F, Al-Kheraif AA, Almas K, Javed F. Comparison of crestal bone loss around dental implants placed in healed sites using flapped and flapless techniques: A systematic review. J Periodontol 2015; 86: 185-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sutter F, Krekeler G, Schwammberger AE, Sutter FJ. Atraumatic surgical technique and implant bed preparation. Quintessence Int 1992; 23: 811-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kuchler U, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Siewczyk M, Gruber R, Maestre L. et al. Development of implant stability quotient values of implants placed with simultaneous sinus floor elevation - Results of a prospective study with 109 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 109-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sanz M, Ivanoff CJ, Weingart D, Wiltfang J, Gahlert M, Cordaro L. et al. Clinical and radiologic outcomes after submerged and transmucosal implant placement with two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17: 234-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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: 11-25
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Eroglu CN, Ertugrul AS, Eskitascioglu M, Eskitascioglu G. Changes in the surface of bone and acid-etched and sandblasted implants following implantation and removal. Eur J Dent 2016; 10: 77-81
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cecchinato D, Lops D, Salvi GE, Sanz M. A prospective, randomized, controlled study using OsseoSpeed™ implants placed in maxillary fresh extraction socket: Soft tissues response. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 20-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khorsand A, Rasouli-Ghahroudi AA, Naddafpour N, Shayesteh YS, Khojasteh A. Effect of microthread design on marginal bone level around dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Implant Dent 2016; 25: 90-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Karoussis IK, Brägger U, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Lang NP. Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: A 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 8-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (Suppl. 02) 35-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44: 377-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Andersson B. Implants for single-tooth replacement. A clinical and experimental study on the Brånemark CeraOne System. Swed Dent J Suppl 1995; 108: 1-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Engquist B, Astrand P, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H, Gröndahl K. Marginal bone reaction to oral implants: A prospective comparative study of Astra Tech and Brånemark System implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 30-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ormianer Z, Palti A. Long-term clinical evaluation of tapered multi-threaded implants: Results and influences of potential risk factors. J Oral Implantol 2006; 32: 300-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Khayat PG, Milliez SN. Prospective clinical evaluation of 835 multithreaded tapered screw-vent implants: Results after two years of functional loading. J Oral Implantol 2007; 33: 225-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kim JW, Baek SH, Kim TW, Chang YI. Comparison of stability between cylindrical and conical type mini-implants. Mechanical and histological properties. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 692-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim JJ, Lee DW, Kim CK, Park KH, Moon IS. Effect of conical configuration of fixture on the maintenance of marginal bone level: Preliminary results at 1 year of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 439-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kadkhodazadeh M, Heidari B, Abdi Z, Mollaverdi F, Amid R. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels around dental implants with different designs after 1 year. Acta Odontol Scand 2013; 71: 92-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shin SI, Yun JH, Kim SG, Park B, Herr Y, Chung JH. Survival of 352 titanium implants placed in 181 patients: A 4-year multicenter field study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2014; 44: 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Motamedian SR, Khojaste M, Khojasteh A. Success rate of implants placed in autogenous bone blocks versus allogenic bone blocks: A systematic literature review. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016; 6: 78-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Akagawa Y, Takata T, Matsumoto T, Nikai H, Tsuru H. Correlation between clinical and histological evaluations of the peri-implant gingiva around the single-crystal sapphire endosseous implant. J Oral Rehabil 1989; 16: 581-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Friberg B, Sennerby L, Roos J, Johansson P, Strid CG, Lekholm U. Evaluation of bone density using cutting resistance measurements and microradiography: An in vitro study in pig ribs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6: 164-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: A human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2: 85-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Influence of implant taper on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 474-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vandeweghe S, Cosyn J, Thevissen E, Teerlinck J, De Bruyn H. The influence of implant design on bone remodeling around surface-modified Southern Implants®. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14: 655-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cruz M, Lourenço AF, Toledo EM, da Silva Barra LP, de Castro Lemonge AC, Wassall T. Finite element stress analysis of cuneiform and cylindrical threaded implant geometries. Technol Health Care 2006; 14: 421-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Huang HL, Chang CH, Hsu JT, Fallgatter AM, Ko CC. Comparison of implant body designs and threaded designs of dental implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 551-62
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Rieger MR, Mayberry M, Brose MO. Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 63: 671-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 422-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: Influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 486-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Friberg B, Jisander S, Widmark G, Lundgren A, Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L. et al. One-year prospective three-center study comparing the outcome of a “soft bone implant” (Prototype Mk IV) and the standard Brånemark implant. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5: 71-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rokn A, Ghahroudi AR, Mesgarzadeh A, Miremadi A, Yaghoobi S. Evaluation of stability changes in tapered and parallel wall implants: A human clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran) 2011; 8: 186-200
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Lang NP, Pun L, Lau KY, Li KY, Wong MC. A systematic review on survival and success rates of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets after at least 1 year. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 05) 39-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar