Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background. It is important to understand the influence of different collar designs on peri-implant marginal bone loss, especially in the critical area. Objectives. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare dental implants with different collar surfaces, evaluating marginal bone loss and survival rates of implants. Methods. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective studies, which evaluated dental implants with different collar surface in the same study. Results. Twelve articles were included, with a total of 492 machined, 319 rough-surfaced, and 352 rough-surfaced microthreaded neck implants. There was less marginal bone loss at implants with rough-surfaced and rough-surfaced microthreaded neck than at machined-neck implants (difference in means: 0.321, 95% CI: 0.149 to 0.493; p < 0.01). Conclusion. Rough and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants are considered a predictable treatment for preserving early marginal bone loss.

Anterior single implants with different neck designs: 5 Year results of a randomized clinical trial

“…Ad‐hoc analyses did not reveal differences between the smooth group and rough group. Other studies, however, reported significantly more marginal bone loss around implants with a smooth neck compared to a rough neck . These studies mainly investigated posterior implants placed in the lower jaw and it is, therefore, questionable whether these results can be compared with our findings.…”

“…Other studies, however, reported significantly | 721 more marginal bone loss around implants with a smooth neck compared to a rough neck. 7 These studies mainly investigated posterior implants placed in the lower jaw and it is, therefore, questionable whether these results can be compared with our findings. It might be that implants in our study were placed deeper in order to create proper emergence profile, which is essential in the esthetic zone.…”

“…Traditionally, implants are provided with a smooth neck (machined or polished surface) to hinder plaque formation and to lower the risk of peri‐implant disease. Some studies, however, demonstrated more marginal bone loss around implants with a smooth neck compared to implants with a rough surface topography at the implant neck . Furthermore, it has been reported that retention elements at the implant neck as microthreads or grooves, favor preservation of marginal bone .…”

“…7 Furthermore, it has been reported that retention elements at the implant neck as microthreads or grooves, favor preservation of marginal bone. 7,8 Apart from these surface modifications, efforts have been made to change the form of the implant neck into a form that is biologically more friendly. Since the implant site of partially edentulous patients is often lower at the facial and palatal aspect and rises toward proximal, a flat implant-abutment interface has been presumed to violate the marginal bone.…”

Effect of Rough Surface Platforms on the Mucosal Attachment and the Marginal Bone Loss of Implants: A Dog Study

“…A systematic review reported that marginal bone resorption takes place irrespectively on the implant neck configuration [9]. Nevertheless, roughness and micro-threads at the implant neck contribute to marginal bone preservation [10][11][12][13][14]. Few studies have compared the effect of implant surface configurations and geometries on the peri-implant healing process at implants placed immediately into extraction sockets [15,16].…”