Clinical Outcomes of Dental Implants with Two Different Internal Connection Configurations—A RCT

Abstract

Background: The aim of the present study was to highlight clinical and radiographical differences among implants sharing the same macro-geometry but with two different prosthodontic connections. Methods: Patients requiring at least 2 implants in the posterior area of the jaw were randomly divided into two groups (Conical (CS) and Internal Hexagonal (IH) connection). At implant surgery (T0), insertion torque, implant stability quotient (ISQ values recorded by resonance frequency analysis, RFA), and soft tissue thickness (STH) were assessed. A 1-abutment/1-time protocol was applied, and the prosthesis was realized following a fully digital workflow. At the 36-month follow-up periapical x-rays were taken. In order to statistically analyse differences among the two groups and the different variables, paired T-test was used. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze how marginal bone loss (MBL) was affected by other independent variables. A neural network created to predict the success (good or not good) of the implant itself was implemented. Results: 30 out of 33 patients (14 males, 16 females, mean age: 68.94 ± 13.01 years) (32 CS and 32 IH) were analyzed. No implants failed. Marginal bone loss at the 3-year time-point was 0.33 ± 0.34 mm and 0.43 ± 0.37 mm respectively for CS and IH with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.004). The presence of keratinized gingiva (p = 0.034) significantly influenced MBL. Conclusions: Both the implant connections investigated presented optimal clinical outcomes with minimal marginal bone loss; however, CS implants and implants with the presence of a greater width of keratinized tissue presented significantly lower MBL.

Effect of Antirotational Two-Piece Titanium Base on the Vertical Misfit, Fatigue Behavior, Stress Concentration, and Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns

“…For implant insertion, centered perforations were made in the resin cylinders using a pilot drill, followed by a drill size 2. The implants were placed inside each resin cylinder using an implant insertion wrench, ensuring that the maximum torque did not exceed 60 N, and the platform was positioned 3 mm above the resin, following the ISO 14801 second edition of 2007 [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ].…”

“…This study used forty (40) implants (IPX 4012, post-extraction internal hexagonal connection, 4 × 12 mm, 4 mm platform, Nueva Galimplant, Sarria, Lugo, Spain), with a Morse taper connection [25]. These implants were installed in resin cylinders obtained through milling, with the following dimensions: 22 mm in height and 25 mm in diameter.…”