Bone remodeling at implants with different configurations and placed immediately at different depth into extraction sockets. Experimental study in dogs

Abstract

Subcrestal immediate implant positioning may lead to a relatively reduced CB resorption and increased BIC. Implants macrodesign with crestal microrings may enhance BIC in post-extraction implants.

Comparison of external and internal implant-abutment connections for implant supported prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Another limitation is related to the location of the implant-abutment interface in relation to the bone crest [4]. Some studies have reported that the use of internal connection at the subcrestal level is better to preserve the bone tissue [59][60][61]. However, only two studies reported on implants placed subcrestally (0.5 mm [36] and 1 mm [44]), although in both external and internal connections.…”

Periodontics, Implantology, and Prosthodontics Integrated: The Zenith-Driven Rehabilitation

“…The rationale of installing the implant anchored in the palatal wall and 4 mm below the buccal gingival margin is to create an adequate emergence profile from the narrow implant platform, increasing the formation/reconstruction of the buccal bone wall to obtain stable results of the hard and soft tissues in the long term [19, 23, 24]. Graft resorption in the horizontal aspect can be equalized by the use of a thick connective tissue graft [25].…”

Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading

“…Different loading protocols were evaluated, because mechanical loading influences bone remodeling [ 11 ], and this variable was not considered in the studies from Hermann et al [ 2 ], Todescan et al [ 3 ], Negri et al [ 7 ], Boquete-Castro et al [ 8 ], and Calvo-Guirado et al [ 9 , 10 ], in which prostheses were not installed.…”

“…On its turn, Calvo-Guirado et al [ 10 ] evaluated different implant geometry (external hexagon, internal hexagon, and internal conical connection). Implants inserted 2 mm subcrestally resulted in 47.33 ± 5.23%, 48.38 ± 11.63%, and 54.88 ± 11.73.%, while those inserted at crestal level resulted in 42.52 ± 8.67%, 35.19 ± 18.12%, and 47.46 ± 11.50%, respectively.…”

“…It is interesting to consider that apical positioning could benefit not only esthetics but also bone-implant contact (BIC). Negri et al [ 7 ], Boquete-Castro et al [ 8 ], and Calvo-Guirado et al [ 9 , 10 ] inserted implants at crestal level or 2 mm subcrestal, in dogs, under immediate implantation conditions. Then, comparisons were performed with regards to the use of different implant-prosthesis connections, and to different healing periods.…”