Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eleven- to fifteen-year outcome for two-piece implants with an internal tube-in-tube connection: a cross-sectional analysis of 245 implants

  • Research
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of a two-piece implant system with a tube-in-tube internal connection after up to 15 years of clinical use.

Material and methods

A retrospective follow-up examination of patients treated with internal tube-in-tube implants between 2003 and 2006 was conducted. The implant survival rates, peri-implant conditions (marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, plaque index, probing depth), and technical complications were determined.

Results

In total, 312 dental implants were placed in 152 patients. Of the original 152 patients enrolled, 245 implants in 112 patients were available for a follow-up evaluation after 11 to 15 years (mean observation time, 12.9 ± 1.1 years). The overall implant survival rate was 93.9%. Outcomes for MBL (1.49 ± 1.23 mm), PI (24.3 ± 22.2%), BOP (18.3 ± 28.7%), and PD (2.74 ± 1.21 mm) were observed. Selected parameters (time after implant surgery, smoking habits, bone augmentation (GBR)) showed an influence on MBL and PD.

Conclusions

The internal tube-in-tube implant system showed favorable long-term results. The correlation of MBL and PD with the patient-specific factor smoking habit is in accordance with other studies.

Clinical relevance

Camlog Root-Line implants with a tube-in-tube implant-abutment connection and a 1.6-mm polished neck configuration have demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes in daily clinical practice. However, it is important to note that these implants are no longer available on the market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, (K.T), upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Gotfredsen K (2012) A 10-year prospective study of single tooth implants placed in the anterior maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14(1):80–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00231.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buser D, Janner SFM, Wittneben JG, Brägger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE (2012) 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14(6):839–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(2):119–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS (2012) Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(SUPPL.6):2–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0501.2012.02547.X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M (2007) Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 18(SUPPL. 3):97–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B (2002) A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 29(SUPPL. 3):197–212. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.29.s3.12.x. (discussion 232-3)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Babbush CA (2005) Evolution of a dental implant practice. The Camlog implant system. N Y State Dent J 71(6):24–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rabel A, Köhler SG, Schmidt-Westhausen AM (2007) Clinical study on the primary stability of two dental implant systems with resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Investig 11(3):257–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0115-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M (2008) Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(12):1276–1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01581.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Watanabe F, Hiroyasu K, Ueda K (2015) The fracture strength by a torsion test at the implant-abutment interface. Int J Implant Dent 1(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-015-0027-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Dittmer MP, Dittmer S, Borchers L, Kohorst P, Stiesch M (2012) Influence of the interface design on the yield force of the implant-abutment complex before and after cyclic mechanical loading. J Prosthodont Res 56(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2011.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Streckbein P, Streckbein RG, Wilbrand JF et al (2012) Non-linear 3D evaluation of different oral implant-abutment connections. J Dent Res 91(12):1184–1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512463396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Schmidinger S, Ewers R, Piehslinger E (2010) Clinical outcome of root-shaped dental implants of various diameters: 5-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(2):357–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Franchini I, Capelli M, Fumagalli L, Parenti A, Testori T (2011) Multicenter retrospective analysis of 201 consecutively placed camlog dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 31(3):255–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Nawas B, Kämmerer PW, Morbach T, Ophoven F, Wagner W (2011) Retrospective clinical evaluation of an internal tube-in-tube dental implant after 4 years, with special emphasis on peri-implant bone resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26(6):1309–1316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Strietzel FP, Reichart PA (2007) Oral rehabilitation using Camlog screw-cylinder implants with a particle-blasted and acid-etched microstructured surface. Results from a prospective study with special consideration of short implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(5):591–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0501.2007.01375.X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ozkan Y, Ozcan M, Akoglu B, Ucankale M, Kulak-Ozkan Y (2007) Three-year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible of partially edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 97(2):78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2007.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarz F, Becker K, Sahm N, Horstkemper T, Rousi K, Becker J (2017) The prevalence of peri-implant diseases for two-piece implants with an internal tube-in-tube connection: a cross-sectional analysis of 512 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(1):24–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/CLR.12609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ali A, Al Attar A, Chrcanovic BR (2023) Frequency of smoking and marginal bone loss around dental implants: a retrospective matched-control study. J Clin Med 12(4):1386

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sánchez-Pérez A, Moya-Villaescusa MJ, Caffesse RG (2007) Tobacco as a risk factor for survival of dental implants. J Periodontol 78(2):351–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lange DE, Plagmann HC, Eenboom A, Promesberger A (1977) Clinical methods for the objective evaluation of oral hygiene. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 32(1):44–47

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, Chen S, Cochran D, Derks J, Figuero E, Hämmerle CHF, Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Huynh-Ba G, Iacono V, Koo KT, Lambert F, McCauley L, Quirynen M, Renvert S, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, Tarnow D, Tomasi C, Wang HL, Zitzmann N (2018) Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Clin Periodontol 45(Suppl 20):286–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ackermann KL, Barth T, Cacaci C, Kistler S, Schlee M, Stiller M (2020) Clinical and patient-reported outcome of implant restorations with internal conical connection in daily dental practices: prospective observational multicenter trial with up to 7-year follow-up. Int J Implant Dent 6(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40729-020-00211-Z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fischer K, Stenberg T (2012) Prospective 10-Year Cohort Study Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on Implant-Supported Full-Arch Maxillary Prostheses: Part 1: Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implants and Mucosal Tissue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14(6):808–815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00389.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stafford GL, Chambrone L, Shibli JA, Mercúrio CE, Cardoso B, Preshaw PM (2014) Review found little difference between sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) dental implants and modified surface (SLActive) implants. Evid Based Dent 15(3):87–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Hicklin S, Brägger U (2014) Complication and failure rates with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns: a 10-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16(3):356–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Roccuzzo M, Bonino L, Dalmasso P, Aglietta M (2014) Long-term results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients: 10-year data around sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(10):1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Benic GI, Bernasconi M, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF (2017) Clinical and radiographic intra-subject comparison of implants placed with or without guided bone regeneration: 15-year results. J Clin Periodontol 44(3):315–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Velzen FJJ, Ofec R, Schulten EAJM, ten Bruggenkate CM (2015) 10-year survival rate and the incidence of peri-implant disease of 374 titanium dental implants with a SLA surface: a prospective cohort study in 177 fully and partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(10):1121–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lini F, Poli P, Beretta M, Cortinovis I, Maiorana C (2019) Long-term retrospective observational cohort study on the survival rate of stepped-screw titanium implants followed up to 20 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34(4):999–1006. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Şener-Yamaner ID, Yamaner G, Sertgöz A, Çanakçi CF, Özcan M (2017) Marginal bone loss around early-loaded SLA and SLActive implants: radiological follow-up evaluation up to 6.5 years. Implant Dent 26(4):592–599. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ren MM, Liu LP, Liu ZH (2017) Eight-year clinical results of SLA surface implant for dentition defect. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 26(4):447–452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. French D, Grandin HM, Ofec R (2019) Retrospective cohort study of 4,591 dental implants: analysis of risk indicators for bone loss and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. J Periodontol 90(7):691–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.18-0236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hänggi MP, Hänggi 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(5):791–802. https://doi.org/10.1902/JOP.2005.76.5.791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lambert FE, Weber HP, Susarla SM, Belser UC, Gallucci GO (2009) Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with fixed implant–supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J Periodontol 80(8):1220–1230. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Simion M, Nevins M, Rasperini G, Tironi F (2018) A 13- to 32-year retrospective study of bone stability for machined dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 38(4):489–493. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bahrami G, Væth M, Kirkevang LL, Wenzel A, Isidor F (2017) The impact of smoking on marginal bone loss in a 10-year prospective longitudinal study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 45(1):59–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dreyer H, Grischke J, Tiede C et al (2018) Epidemiology and risk factors of peri-implantitis: a systematic review. J Periodontal Res 53(5):657–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Roos-Jansåker AM, Lindahl C, Renvert H, Renvert S (2006) Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part I: implant loss and associations to various factors. J Clin Periodontol 33(4):283–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-051X.2006.00907.X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Roos-Jansåker AM, Lindahl C, Renvert H, Renvert S (2006) Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions. J Clin Periodontol 33(4):290–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-051X.2006.00906.X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank DI Irene Mischak (Medical University of Graz, Austria) for statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Elisabeth Steyer, Kerstin Theisen, Helfried Hulla, Ceeneena Ubaidha Maheen, Alwin Sokolowski & Martin Lorenzoni

  2. Private Practice Straß, Graz, Austria

    Helfried Hulla

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Steyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerstin Theisen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helfried Hulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ceeneena Ubaidha Maheen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alwin Sokolowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Lorenzoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors’ contributions: E.S &; K.T. conceived and designed the overall study, executed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. H. H., C.U.M and A.S. designed the study, executed the experiments, analyzed data and edited the manuscript. M.L. supervised the project and made final approval of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Theisen.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Local ethics committee at the Medical University of Graz (ref: 30–349 ex 17/18).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steyer, E., Theisen, K., Hulla, H. et al. Eleven- to fifteen-year outcome for two-piece implants with an internal tube-in-tube connection: a cross-sectional analysis of 245 implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg 28, 859–867 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-024-01215-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-024-01215-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation