Influence of implant neck design and implant–abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x

★ Alto impactoQ1 · Scientific articleImpact Factor · 3.681

AutoresM. A. Peñarrocha-Diago, A. J. Flichy-Fernández, R. Alonso-González, D. Peñarrocha-Oltra, J. Balaguer-Martínez, M. Peñarrocha-Diago

Por qué importa

Este estudio radiológico comparativo analiza la influencia del diseño del cuello del implante y el tipo de conexión implante-muñón en la pérdida ósea marginal periimplantaria. Se evaluaron dos tipos de implantes, uno con superficie mecanizada y conexión externa, y otro con superficie tratada, microhilos y plataforma switching. Los resultados indican una pérdida ósea significativamente menor con el implante que presentaba plataforma switching y conexión interna tras 6 y 12 meses de carga funcional. Aunque ambas opciones se mantienen dentro de los rangos de normalidad descritos en la literatura, la conexión implante-muñón emerge como un factor relevante en el mantenimiento de los niveles óseos crestales, un aspecto crucial para la longevidad de las rehabilitaciones implantosoportadas.

Abstract original

Objective: To carry out a comparative study of two implants with different neck features and prostheses platform connection (machined with external connection and rough-surfaced with switching platform) upon peri-implant marginal bone loss, before and after functional loading. Material and methods: A randomized, prospective radiological study was made. Eighteen totally edentulous patients were selected. Subjects were divided into two groups according to the type of implant neck used: (a) Osseous®, with machined surface, without microthreads, external connection, and without platform switching; and (b) Inhex®, with treated surface, microthreads, internal connection, and platform switching. Mesial and distal marginal bone loss was measured. Implant success was assessed according to the criteria of Buser. Control timepoints were as follows: (a) at implant placement; (b) at prosthesis placement; (c) 6 months after loading; (d) 12 months after loading. Results: Fifteen patients that received 120 dental implants were included: 47% Osseous® group and 53% Inhex® group. Global mean marginal bone loss with Osseous® was 0.27 ± 0.43 mm and 0.38 ± 0.51 mm as determined 6 and 12 months after prosthetic loading, respectively, whereas in the case of Inhex® was 0.07 ± 0.13 and 0.12 ± 0.17 mm. These differences were statistically significant (P = 0.047). Difference between Osseous® and Inhex® in maxilla (P = 0.272) and mandibular (P = 0.462) bone loss were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Bone loss after 6 and 12 months proved statistically significant between two groups, with comparatively greater loss in the case of Osseous® implants vs. Inhex® implants. Regardless the heterogeneity of the two groups (neck shape, microthreads, surface texture), the implant–abutment connection appears to be a significant factor on peri-implant crestal bone levels. Anyway, in both groups, the values obtained were within normal ranges described in the literature.

Leer texto completo ↗DOI · 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x

Autor Doctor&Cols

Toni Flichy
Cirugía Oral e Implantología

Cómo citar

Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernández AJ, Alonso-González R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez J, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Influence of implant neck design and implant–abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x