A rough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: a prospective clinical study

Bratu, Elisabeta; Tandlich, Moshik; Shapira, Lior

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01730.x

Cited by 91 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, implants with microthreads collar design are more preferable than smooth implant collar, provided stresses are not exceeding threshold stain values of bone, above which bone fails to heal after fatigue 42 . This was in agreement with prospective studies 43,44 which showed that implants with roughened and threaded implant neck design are more resistant to marginal bone loss compared to smooth, polished designs. This was attributed to the compressive nature of stresses around threads with bone being stronger under compressive forces while weaker under tensile and shear forces which are caused by smooth-neck implant designs.…”

Section: Discussion:-supporting

confidence: 81%

Effect of Crown Material, Implant Platform and Abutment Design on the Stress Distribution Around Implant-Supported Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Othman¹,

Katamish²,

Shaker³

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussion:-supporting

confidence: 81%

Effect of Crown Material, Implant Platform and Abutment Design on the Stress Distribution Around Implant-Supported Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Othman¹,

Katamish²,

Shaker³

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the case of the rough neck implants without microthreading, the survival rate varied from 94.5% (18) to 100% (3,4,6,9,17). Lastly, in the rough neck implants with microthreading, the survival rate was found to be 100% (3)(4)(5)10). …”

Section: -Survival Ratementioning

confidence: 96%

“…The survival rate of the polished neck implants ranged from 87% (18) to 100% (4,6,10). In the case of the rough neck implants without microthreading, the survival rate varied from 94.5% (18) to 100% (3,4,6,9,17).…”

Section: -Survival Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

“…After one year of follow-up, they recorded a bone loss of 0.78 mm, and concluded that a rough surface was not sufficient to avoid crestal bone loss -though the mentioned study did not meet the inclusion criteria of our review. According to these authors (4,8,10), microthreading of the implant neck could contribute to preserve marginal bone.…”

Section: -Bone Loss Polished Neck Versus Rough Neck Without Microthrementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This loss begins at the neck of the implant and spreads to the first thread of the body of the implant or to the first contact between the bone and the rough surface of the implant (3). Peri-implant bone reabsorption depends on a number of factors such as the surface of the neck (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) and reduction of the implant platform (11)(12)(13). There is no agreement regarding the influence of performing surgery in one or two steps (14)(15)(16) or of the cylindrical or conical morphology of the neck (3,4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

Aloy-Prósper¹,

Maestre-Ferrín²,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review is made of the publications on the marginal bone loss of implants with a polished neck, rough neck with microthreading, and rough neck without microthreading. A PubMed search was carried out with the following key words: machined neck implant, polished neck implant, marginal bone loss, covering the period between January 1998 and March 2009. Inclusion was limited to those human clinical studies involving a minimum follow-up of 12 months, and registering the level of bone loss from the time of placement of the implant or prosthetic restoration to the end of follow-up. For most of the authors there were no significant differences in marginal bone loss between polished neck and rough neck implants. On the other hand, implants with a rough neck and microthreading showed significantly less bone loss than those with a polished neck or with a rough neck without microthreading. The survival rate of the implants with a polished neck ranged from 87% to 97.7%, versus 94.5% to 100% for those with a rough neck, and 100% for the rough neck implants with microthreading. No peri-implant disease was registered in the different studies.

show abstract

Femtosecond laser microstructuring of zirconia dental implants

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the suitability of femtosecond laser for microtexturizing cylindrical zirconia dental implants surface. Sixty-six cylindrical zirconia implants were used and divided into three groups: Control group (with no laser modification), Group A (microgropored texture), and Group B (microgrooved texture). Scanning electron microscopy observation of microgeometries revealed minimal collateral damage of the original surface surrounding the treated areas. Optical interferometric profilometry showed that ultrafast laser ablation increased surface roughness (R(a), R(q), R(z), and R(t)) significantly for both textured patterns from 1.2 x to 6 x-fold when compared with the control group (p < 0.005). With regard to chemical composition, microanalysis revealed a significant decrease of the relative content of contaminants like carbon (Control 19.7% ± 0.8% > Group B 8.4% ± 0.42% > Group A 1.6% ± 0.35%) and aluminum (Control 4.3% ± 0.9% > Group B 2.3% ± 0.3% > Group A 1.16% ± 0.2%) in the laser-treated surfaces (p < 0.005). X-ray diffraction and Raman spectra analysis were carried out to investigate any change in the crystalline structure induced by laser processing. The original predominant tetragonal phase of zirconia was preserved, whereas the traces of monoclinic phase present in the treated surfaces were reduced (Control 4.32% > Group A 1.94% > Group B 1.72%) as the surfaces were processed with ultrashort laser pulses. We concluded that femtosecond laser microstructuring offers an interesting alternative to conventional surface treatments of zirconia implants as a result of its precision and minimal damage of the surrounding areas.

show abstract

A rough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: a prospective clinical study

Abstract: Implants with a roughened neck surface and microthreads are more resistant to MBL during the first phases of healing, as compared with implants with a polished neck.

Cited by 91 publications

References 18 publications

Effect of Crown Material, Implant Platform and Abutment Design on the Stress Distribution Around Implant-Supported Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Effect of Crown Material, Implant Platform and Abutment Design on the Stress Distribution Around Implant-Supported Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

Femtosecond laser microstructuring of zirconia dental implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About