A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs

Glibert, Maarten; Vervaeke, Stijn; Jacquet, Wolfgang; Vermeersch, K.; Östman, Pär-Olov; Bruyn, Hugo De

doi:10.1111/cid.12604

Cited by 18 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in vitro studies applying static and dynamic loading to implants with different connections have, however, shown leakage also from the conical connection . Furthermore, a controlled clinical study showed no differences when comparing the same implant design with or without a conical connection after a follow‐up of 19 months . In the present study, minimal bone loss was observed in spite of the fact that the implant‐prosthesis junction was placed close to the bone level, which theoretically would have challenged the biologic width and resulted in more bone loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing marginal bone loss at a hydrophilic implant design placed with or without GBR procedures: A 5‐year retrospective study

Zumstein¹,

Schütz²,

Sahlin³

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ongoing marginal bone loss is a threat to the longevity of implant‐supported prostheses. Aim The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the survival rate and factors affecting marginal bone levels at a hydrophilic implant design after 5 years in function. Materials and Methods The study group consisted of 51 consecutive patients previously treated with 159 hydrophilic implants (Neoss Straight Proactive implants) and scheduled for annual check‐ups with clinical and radiographic examinations during 5 years. Data were compiled for the entire study population as well as for two subgroups: one where guided bone regeneration (GBR) was performed (91 implants) and the other where no GBR procedures (68 implants) were performed. Marginal bone levels were measured from peri‐apical radiographs taken at placement and annual follow‐ups. Statistical analyses were applied to evaluate the effect of different factors on marginal bone remodeling. Results Two implant failures, one from each subgroup, occurred during the first year of function resulting in an overall cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 98.7% after 5 years of loading. The mean marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.7 mm after 1 year and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm after 5 years. No implants showed more than 3 mm bone loss after 5 years. Age, gender, implant position, biotype, implant diameter, implant length, indication, surgical/loading protocol, and ISQ at prosthesis delivery were found to affect bone remodeling. No significant differences or correlations were seen for smoking, jaw, bone quantity, bone quality, GBR, sinus lift, and ISQ at implant placement. Conclusions The present implant design performed well with few failures and minimal marginal bone loss after 5 years of loading. Marginal bone remodeling at implants is a complex phenomenon, which is affected by many patient‐, procedure‐, and implant‐related factors that need to be further investigated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing marginal bone loss at a hydrophilic implant design placed with or without GBR procedures: A 5‐year retrospective study

Zumstein¹,

Schütz²,

Sahlin³

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four studies, at high and unclear risk of bias established, a comparative analysis between rough collar implants with and without microthreads (Glibert et al, ; Kang et al, ; Lee et al, ; Ryu et al, ). One study evaluated the position of microthreads within the collar on marginal bone levels (Song et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In seven studies, it was unclear whether random sequence gen- In 18 cases, it was unclear from the trial report whether concealment of the randomization was performed (Akoglu et al, 2011;Astrand, Engquist, Anzen, et al, 2004;Glibert et al, 2018;Guarnieri et al, 2015;Gultekin, Gultekin, Leblebicioglu, Basegmez, & Yalcin, 2013;Hegazy, Elmekawy, & Emera, 2016;Hof et al, 2014;Hsu et al, 2016;Jacobs et al, 2010;Kang et al, 2012;Kim et al, 2010;Lee, Choi, Park, Kim, & Moon, 2007;Penarrocha-Diago et al, 2013;Ravald, Dahlgren, Teiwik, & Grondahl, 2013;Ryu, Namgung, Heo, Lee, & Lim, 2016;Shin, Han, Heo, Kim, & Chun, 2006;Song et al, 2009;Tymstra et al, 2011) and were therefore classified as unclear risk for it the possibility to foresee the allocation. One study reported alternate enrolment of patients and was classified as high risk of bias (Nickenig et al, 2013).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In four trials, data were not directly extractable from the text (calculations needed) or data were so incomplete that it could not be used in the meta-analysis and thus were classified as high risk (Burtscher et al, 2015;Glibert et al, 2018;Hsu et al, 2016;Nickenig et al, 2013).…”

Section: Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…presented conventional loading protocols (superior to 2 months of osseointegration) except for the work of Alsabeeha et al, with early loading at 6 weeks, and the work ofKim et al (2013) with immediate loading.Four studies, at high and unclear risk of bias established, a comparative analysis between rough collar implants with and without microthreads(Glibert et al, 2018;Kang et al, 2012;Lee et al, 2007;Ryu et al, 2016). One study evaluated the position of microthreads within the collar on marginal bone levels(Song et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Titanium dental implants with different collar design and surface modifications: A systematic review on survival rates and marginal bone levels

Messias

Nicolau

Guerra

2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of dental implants with different neck characteristics. Methods A protocol‐oriented search aimed at the question: “In patients subjected to tooth replacement with screw‐type dental implants does the modification of the implant neck macro‐ or microgeometry contribute to the improvement of survival rates and maintenance of the peri‐implant marginal bone levels?” Primary outcomes were survival and marginal bone level (MBL) changes evaluated on randomized controlled trials with >10 participants and follow‐up >1 year. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The review follows the PRISMA statement. Results Forty‐three studies compared: (a) One‐ versus two‐piece implants (N = 7); (b) Two‐piece implants with different neck characteristics (machined and rough collars, microthreads, LASER microtexturing) (N = 21); (c) Two‐piece implants with macrogeometry modifications (tapering, back‐tapering, and scalloping) (N = 6). One‐ and two‐piece implants showed similar survival (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: [0.12, 1.66], p = 0.23) and MBL changes (WMD = 0.09 mm, 95% CI: [−0.27, 0.45], p = 0.64) at 1‐year post‐loading. Machined collar implants have higher risk of early failure than rough collar implants (RR = 3.96, 95% CI: [1.12, 13.93], p = 0.03) and 0.43 mm higher bone resorption (95% CI: [0.0, 0.86], p = 0.05). Microthreads (WMD = 0.07 mm, 95% CI: [−0.01, 0.15], p = 0.10) and LASER microtexturing (WMD = 0.15 mm, 95% CI: [−0.35, 0.65], p = 0.56) do not reduce bone resorption. Scalloped implants have 1.26 mm higher resorption (95% CI: [0.72, 2.00], p < 0.001). Conclusions One‐ and two‐piece implants have similar survival and MBL changes. Rough collar implants have lower MBL changes than machined collar implants. Additional modifications to rough collars are irrelevant.

show abstract

Considerations of Implant–abutment Connections for the Longevity of Dental Implants

Delgado‐Ruiz,

Javed,

Romanos

2024

Saving Dental Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs

Cited by 18 publications

References 36 publications

Factors influencing marginal bone loss at a hydrophilic implant design placed with or without GBR procedures: A 5‐year retrospective study

Factors influencing marginal bone loss at a hydrophilic implant design placed with or without GBR procedures: A 5‐year retrospective study

Titanium dental implants with different collar design and surface modifications: A systematic review on survival rates and marginal bone levels

Considerations of Implant–abutment Connections for the Longevity of Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About