Crestal Bone Changes Around Implants With Reduced Abutment Diameter Placed Non‐Submerged and at Subcrestal Positions: A 1‐Year Radiographic Evaluation

Donovan, Ryan; Fetner, Alan; Koutouzis, Theofilos; Lundgren, Tord M.

doi:10.1902/jop.2009.090317

Cited by 66 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, under eccentric loading, only the SW and SO models presented safe values. This decrease in compressive stress and strain in the crestal region can explain some clinical findings of bone ingrowth coronal to the fixture-abutment interface 6 and a higher success rate with an increase in the depth of placement. Table 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…25 Therefore, this residual tensile stress can also explain why there is bone formation above the implant platform when the implants are placed subcrestally. 6 On the other hand, this can be the consequence of the assumption that cortical and trabecular bones are homogeneous and perfectly bonded in the analysis because the implant platform is only 1 mm away from the trabecular/cortical interface. Because there is no threshold value to stimulate bone apposition, and because excessive ten- Both subcrestal models were more efficient in decreasing the strain in the crestal region compared with the model with bicortical fixation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Moreover, this deeper position may also be indicated when there is limited interocclusal height for the restoration and for an esthetic emergence profile. 5,6 Declaration of Interests: The authors certify that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11,12 Therefore, this lower stress concentration in the crestal cortical bone can explain the occurrence of osseointegration coronal to the abutment-fixture interface in cases of subcrestal implant placement with Morse taper connection. 6 However, in cases of subcrestal implant placement in the maxilla, the implant apex can be engaged into the cortical bone of the nasal or maxillary sinus floor. Bicortical fixation of bone level implants improves primary stability and decreases the stress in the bone; 13 however, the influence of apical anchorage of subcrestal implants on stress distribution remains unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the biomechanical influence of apical bone anchorage on a single subcrestal dental implant using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Four different bone anchorage designs were simulated on a posterior maxillary segment using one implant with platform switching and internal Morse taper connection as follows: 2 mm subcrestal placement with (SW) or without (SO) the implant apex engaged into the cortical bone or position at bone level with anchorage only in the crestal cortical (BO) bone or with bicortical fixation (BW). Each implant received a premolar crown, and all models were loaded with 200 N to simulate centric and eccentric occlusion. The peak tensile and compressive stress and strain were calculated at the crestal cortical, trabecular, and apical cortical bone. The vertical and horizontal implant displacements were measured at the platform level. FEA indicated that subcrestal placement (SW and SO) created lower stress and strain in the crestal cortical bone compared with crestal placement (BO and BW models). The SW model exhibited lesser vertical and horizontal implant micromovement compared with the SO and BO models under eccentric loading; however, stress and strain were higher in the apical cortical bone. The BW model exhibited the lowest implant displacement. These results indicate that subcrestal placement decreases the stress in the crestal cortical bone of dental implants, regardless of apical anchorage; however, apical cortical anchorage can be effective in limiting implant displacement. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of possible remodeling around the apex on the success of subcrestal implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implant manufacturers try to reduce bacterial infiltration by increasing the accuracy and stability of the jointed pieces by fabricating very high precision mechanical parts 7 . Internal conical joints have greater mechanical stability of the I-A interface and have shown no crest bone loss [20][21] . This has been explained by the stress distribution of the implant's long axis during function.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial microleakage at the implant-abutment interface in Morse taper implants

Silva-Neto¹,

Majadas²,

Prudente³

et al. 2014

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the microleakage at the implant-abutment (I-A) interface of Morse tapered implants inoculated with different volumes of bacterial suspension. Methods: Morse tapered I-A sets were selected and divided in two groups depending on the type of abutment: passing screw (PS) and solid (S), and then subdivided into four subgroups (n=6) according to the suspension volume: PS1: 0.1 µL; PS3: 0.3 µL; PS5: 0.5 µL; PS7: 0.7 µL; S1: 0.1 µL; S3: 0.3 µL; S5: 0.5 µL and S7: 0.7 µL. A control test was performed to verify the presence of external contamination during the inoculation and the implants were incubated for microbiological analysis. The microleakage was evaluated every 24 h for 7 days by the clarity of solution. After this period, the implants were disassembled for confirmation of bacterial viability. Results: All the specimens with 0.7 µL and one sample of S5 presented turbidity in the control test indicating external contamination, and were excluded from the study. After 7 days of observation, none of the specimens presented positive results for microleakage and the bacterial viability was confirmed in all specimens. The 0.1 µL and 0.3 µL volumes did not present bacterial microleakage, meaning that these volumes may be inadequate for analysis. Conclusions: None of the sets evaluated showed bacterial microleakage at the I-A interface and the volume of 0.7 µL exceeded the internal capacity of the implants.

show abstract

Implant Provisionalization: The Key to Definitive Aesthetic Success

Karateew

2017

Implant Aesthetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crestal Bone Changes Around Implants With Reduced Abutment Diameter Placed Non‐Submerged and at Subcrestal Positions: A 1‐Year Radiographic Evaluation

Abstract: The present study reported a minimal loss of mineralized hard tissue around dental implants placed non-submerged and at subcrestal positions. In addition, these implants had hard tissue healing that extended onto the implant shoulders on most of the observed implants.

Cited by 66 publications

References 26 publications

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

Bacterial microleakage at the implant-abutment interface in Morse taper implants

Implant Provisionalization: The Key to Definitive Aesthetic Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About