Randomised study for the 1-year crestal bone maintenance around modified diameter implants with different loading protocols: a radiographic evaluation
- 302 Downloads
This study evaluated by standardised digitised periapical radiography the crestal bone maintenance around modified diameter internal hex implants with variable thread design and narrow neck loaded with different procedures. Forty implants were placed in 25 patients. Twenty implants were conventionally loaded, 20 ones immediately loaded. Radiographs were taken with a customised bite record and processed with software. Measurements of bone from the fixture–abutment junction to mesial and distal marginal bone levels were made. Student’s t test statistical analysis was adopted. Baseline data were variable; at 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences for marginal bone loss between immediately and conventionally loaded maxillary implants (p = 0.1031), whilst there were slight significant differences between immediately and conventionally loaded implants in the mandible (p = 0.0141). Crestal bone maintenance around conventionally and immediately loaded modified diameter implants was similar, with slight significant differences in mandible where a lower marginal bone loss was observed.
KeywordsBone maintenance Diagnostic imaging Dental implants Radiograph Randomised study Loading protocols
Conflict of interest
The authors declare to not have conflict of interest.
- 3.Ibañez JC, Tahhan MJ, Zamar JA, Menendez AB, Juaneda AM, Zamar NJ, Monqaut JL (2005) Immediate occlusal loading of double acid-etched surface titanium implants in 41 consecutive full-arch cases in the mandible and maxilla: 6- to 74-month results. J Periodontol 76:1972–1981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Piattelli A, Corigliano M, Scarano A, Costigliola G, Paolantonio M (1996) Immediate loading of titanium plasma-sprayed implants: an histologic analysis in monkeys. J Periodontol 69:321–327Google Scholar
- 8.Sahin S, Cehre MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10:892–895Google Scholar
- 17.Degidi M, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Piattelli A (2008) Immediately loaded titanium implant with a tissue-stabilizing/maintaining design (‘beyond platform switch’) retrieved from man after 4 weeks: a histological and histomorphometrical evaluation. A case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:276–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Penarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchis JM, Guarinos J, Balaguer JA (2004) technique for standardized evaluation of soft and hard peri-implant tissues in partially edentulous patients. J Periodontol 5:646–651Google Scholar
- 35.Meijndert L, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A (2004) Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location, and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:861–867Google Scholar
- 39.Hanggi MP, Hanggi DC, Schoolfield JD, Meyer J, Cochran DL, Hermann JS (2005) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: a retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. J Periodontol 76:791–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar