Marginal Bone Response of Submerged and Nonsubmerged Osteoconductive Alkali-Etched Implants in Thick and Thin Biotypes: A 2-year Clinical Follow-up Study

Novák, Zdeněk; Strnad, Jakub; Nesvadba, Radim; Kamprle, Jan; Strnad, Z.

doi:10.11607/jomi.7399

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The RS implants showed a mean bone resorption of 0.61 mm (SD ± 0.28 mm) and the RSX implants 0.57 mm (SD ± 0.24 mm) 2 years after implant insertion. Other studies showed marginal bone loss of 1.07 mm after 10 years [ 26 ] and 0.36 mm (SD; 0.55) after 2 years [ 27 ]. Buser et al detected radiologically a mean distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact of 3.32 mm (SD ± 0.73) 10 years after surgery [ 28 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of machined versus structured implant shoulder designs on crestal bone level changes: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The collar region of an implant is its connection to the oral cavity. A balance between osseointegration on one hand and the absence of plaque accumulation on the other hand is necessary for successful implantation. It is yet to be determined which implant collar design, polished or rough, is best to stabilize the crestal bone level, avoiding peri-implantitis and subsequent risk of implant loss. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the architecture of the collar region on marginal bone and soft tissue response. Methods This prospective, randomized, clinically controlled multicenter study included 58 patients undergoing dental implant treatment using a pair of dental implants with either machined or rough-surfaced shoulder regions. Patients were clinically and radiologically examined for bone level height and signs of inflammation after 6, 12 and 24 months. Results No implant was lost within the 2 years of follow-up (100% survival rate). No significant differences on crestal bone loss (machined neck: 0.61 mm ± 0.28 mm, rough neck 0.58 mm ± 0.24 mm) and on soft tissue response (probing depth 3–6 mm with bleeding on probing 7.6% in machined-neck implants and in 8.3% in rough neck implants) were observed between implants with machined and roughened neck after 2 years. Conclusions Machined and roughened neck implants achieved equally good results concerning peri-implant bone loss, the rate of peri-implantitis and implant survival rate/hard and soft tissue integration. None of the two collar designs showed a clear advantage in peri-implant reaction. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DKRS00029033. Registered 09 May 2022—Retrospectively registered, http://www.dkrs.de

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of machined versus structured implant shoulder designs on crestal bone level changes: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Loading can lead to bone remodeling around the implant, 38 which may result in progressive MBL or even complete loss of osseointegration 39 . Zdenek's study found that the marginal bone changed most significantly during the period from implant placement to loading for 6 months, and the change decreased gradually with longer loading times 40 . This is because the bone around the implants can adapt to the mechanical stress of long‐term loading by structural changes and that responsiveness to loading diminishes over time 38 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Bone Loss around Machined Smooth Neck Implants Compared to Rough Threaded Neck Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Zhang

Yue

2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this meta‐analysis was to assess the effect of rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss, compared to machined smooth neck implants. Materials and Methods Literature searches were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (up to March 04, 2020), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to March 04, 2020), and EMBASE (1980 to March 04, 2020), and reference lists of relevant manuscripts and relevant systematic reviews. Grey literature was sought using Grey Literature Net‐Work Service (www.opengrey.eu) and The Grey Literature Report (www.greylit.org). Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared the effects of machined smooth neck implants versus rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss were included. Two review authors selected studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from included studies independently. The meta‐analysis was carried out with Review Manager v5.3 software that compared marginal bone loss between rough threaded neck implants and machined smooth neck implants. Results This review included 8 manuscripts (2 randomized controlled trials and 6 controlled clinical trials) from 6 clinical studies. The marginal bone loss around the rough threaded neck implants was significantly less than that around machined smooth neck ones (MD: –0.43 mm, 95% CI: –0.65 to –0.22 mm; p < 0.0001). In the subgroup with different platform connections, less marginal bone loss was observed around the rough threaded neck implants with platform switching (MD: –0.67 mm, 95% CI: –0.87 to –0.48 mm; p < 0.00001) or with regular platform (MD: –0.28 mm, 95% CI: –0.39 to –0.18 mm; p < 0.00001). The statistical analysis of the subgroups with functional loading for 3 or 6 months (MD: –0.39 mm; 95% CI: –0.61 to –0.18 mm; p = 0.0003) and 1 year or longer (MD: –0.43 mm, 95% CI: –0.65 to –0.22 mm; p < 0.0001) suggested that the rough threaded neck implants helped to reduce marginal bone loss. Conclusions The results of this review suggested that rough threaded neck implants may be helpful in maintaining the amount of marginal bone around implants. Larger sample size, longer follow‐up periods and well‐conducted randomized controlled trials are necessary to further prove the validity of the findings.

show abstract

Influence of different mucosal phenotype on early and long-term marginal bone loss around implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marginal Bone Response of Submerged and Nonsubmerged Osteoconductive Alkali-Etched Implants in Thick and Thin Biotypes: A 2-year Clinical Follow-up Study

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Impact of machined versus structured implant shoulder designs on crestal bone level changes: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study

Impact of machined versus structured implant shoulder designs on crestal bone level changes: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study

Marginal Bone Loss around Machined Smooth Neck Implants Compared to Rough Threaded Neck Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Influence of different mucosal phenotype on early and long-term marginal bone loss around implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About