Influence of implant neck design and implant–abutment connection type on peri‐implant health. Radiological study

Flichy-Fernández, Antonio-Juan; Alonso-González, Rocío; Peñarrocha‐Oltra, David; Balaguer-Martínez, José; Peñarrocha-Diago, María

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x

Cited by 96 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study are probably related to the presence of microgaps between the External Hexagon implant and abutment, in contrast to the intimate matching observed between the Morse Taper components (9,10). This accurate fit provides better sealing against bacterial microleakage and stability between implant and abutment, which may preserve the peri-implant tissues (9,13).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

“…So, it was found greater peri-implant bone loss with External Hexagon implants after 1-year follow-up. Similarly, the literature evaluating the influence of joint design on bone resorption suggests that external joints cause greater peri-implant bone loss compared to internal joints (12)(13)(14). Literature has also discussed about bone loss etiologies after loading of implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, those studies do not standardize the implant-supported prosthesis design and the protocol of immediate loading or conventional loading (12)(13)(14).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Peri-Implant Bone Loss of External Hexagon and Morse Taper in Patients Wearing Immediately Loaded Overdentures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the peri-implant bone loss of External Hexagon (EH) and Morse Taper (MT) implants in patients wearing immediately loaded mandibular overdentures during a 1-year follow-up. This is a non-randomized controlled clinical trial including 18 MT and 22 EH implants. Periapical radiographs were taken after overdentures insertion and following 1 year. The peri-implant bone loss was assessed through digitalization and analysis of the radiographs in the software Corel DRAW X7. For this, measurement from implant platform to residual ridge at mesial and distal surfaces of each implant was conducted. The results showed high success rate in the groups EH (100%) and MT (94.4%). For peri-implant bone levels, it was found significant difference between the groups (p=0.032) and greater bone loss was observed in the group EH. In general, bone loss was 0.85mm (±0.82) for EH and 0.10mm (±1.0) for MT. It was concluded that greater bone loss occurred in the group EH in comparison to the group MT after a 1-year follow-up. P e r i -I m p l a n t B o n e L o s s o f E x t e r n a l H e x a g o n a n d M o r s e T a p e r i n P a t i e n t s W e a r i n g Immediately Loaded Overdentures

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peri-Implant Bone Loss of External Hexagon and Morse Taper in Patients Wearing Immediately Loaded Overdentures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Respecto al momento de la toma de radiografías, algunos autores (Peñarrocha et al, 2013;den Hartog et al, 2011;Tan et al, 2011;Shin et al, 2006;Van de Velde et al, 2010;Bratu et al, 2009;Heinemann et al, 2009) no la realizan en dos momentos que pueden considerarse clave, como son la colocación del implante y la conexión de la prótesis. Es por ello, que en estos casos, no es posible determinar si la pérdida de hueso es consecuencia de la remodelación ósea post-quirúrgica, de la formación de un nuevo espacio biológico al conectar la prótesis o como resultado de la carga.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Influencia del Diseño Micro y Macroscópico de la Región Cervical del Implante en la Preservación de Hueso Marginal Perimplantario: Una Revisión Sistemática

Pereira

Arrieta

González

et al. 2015

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN: El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática fue evaluar los distintos diseños en el cuello del implante (pulido o tratado, con o sin intercambio de plataforma, o con o sin microespiras) y su posible influencia en la pérdida del hueso marginal periimplantario. Se llevo a cabo una revisión sistemática siguiendo la metodología PICO del Centro de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia de la Universidad de Oxford. La pregunta dirigida a la consecución de los objetivos fue: ¿Es el diseño del cuello del implante un factor crítico en la conservación del hueso marginal periimplantario? Se emplearon MeSH keywords específicos en las bases de datos Pubmed y Cochrane. Tres revisores independientes se pusieron de acuerdo en los estudios finalmente incluidos, obteniendo un índice de concordancia kappa de 0,88. De estos, se realizó una evaluación crítica del nivel de evidencia y también del riesgo de sesgo de los RCT mediante la Herramienta Cochrane. Se consultaron 445 artículos por título, incluyendo finalmente un total de 16 artículos a texto completo. La heterogeneidad de estos estudios impidió realizar un meta-análisis. No se encontró evidencia de que una determinada configuración del cuello del implante sea mejor que otra en la conservación del hueso marginal periimplantario y sin embargo, parece que una posición apico-coronal yuxtaósea del cuello pulido del implante respecto a la cresta ósea receptora pudiera ser crítica a ese respecto. No se encontró suficiente evidencia sobre la efectividad de las diferentes configuraciones de la región cervical del implante en la preservación del hueso marginal periimplantario. Son necesarios estudios clínicos controlados y aleatorizados a largo plazo para valorar los efectos de dichas modificaciones.PALABRAS CLAVE: reabsorción ósea, cuello del implante, pérdida ósea marginal, diseño del cuello del implante, plataforma modificada. INTRODUCCIÓNUno de los factores más relevantes entre los criterios de éxito en la rehabilitación implantológica es la presencia de un nivel adecuado de hueso periimplantario, evaluado radiográficamente tras la carga protésica (Albrektsson et al., 1986). Tradicionalmente se ha considerado aceptable una pérdida ósea marginal de 1-2 mm durante el primer año de carga y de 0,05-0,2 mm anuales a partir de éste (Branemark et al., 1977). No obstante, se ha observado que una reabsorción ósea excesiva compromete la supervivencia tanto del implante como de la prótesis sobre él retenida. Los factores involucrados en esta reabsorción

show abstract

“…A few studies have analyzed MBL in relation to abutment connection type. [34][35][36] In prospective clinical studies, Koo et al 34 and Peñarrocha Diago et al 35 described MBL were significantly greater for the external compared to the internal connection. However, only a small number of implants were analyzed and the duration of the study was less than a year.…”

Section: -21mentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with the survival and marginal bone loss of dental implants: a 5-year retrospective study

Song

Lee

et al. 2016

J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implants are a predictable treatment option for intra-oral prosthetic reconstruction. The survival rates of osseointegrated dental implants are 89.2 -95.5%, as reported in systematic review over the last 5 years. 1 The stability of bone level around dental implants is one of the important factors in long-term implant success. However, certain biological and technical complications may lead to implant failure and peri-implant bone loss. 2,3 Previous periodontal disease, poor plaque control, smoking, and diabetes are included as risk factors that may lead to periimplant mucositis and peri-implantitis, as reported by the American Academy of Periodontology. 4 In patients with a history of periodontitis, however, preventive maintenance programs can reduce the incidence of peri-implantitis. 5,6 In four systematic reviews, smoking was described as a negative factor in implant outcome and affects survival rate and marginal bone loss. 7-10 However, other studies found no significant relationship between smoking and im- Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss related to multiple risk factors including the clinician's experience. Materials and Methods: Four hundred twenty implants in 146 patients, who had involved a supportive periodontal therapy program every 3 to 6 months and had follow up data for at least 5 years, were selected as the study group. Peri-implant marginal bone loss, data of demographic, implant and surgical characteristics were collected from peri-apical radiographs and chart review. Implant survival was regarded as the remaining with radiographic marginal bone level in excess of 50% of the fixture length for any reason. Results: The cumulative survival rate after 5 years of loading was 94.9%. In binary logistic regression analysis, smoking status (P = 0.033) and presence of spontaneous cover screw exposure (P < 0.001) were significantly related to 5-year survival of implants. In stepwise multiple regression analysis, smoking status (P < 0.001), type of abutment connection (P < 0.001) and implant surface (P = 0.033) were significantly related to peri-implant marginal bone level. And the year of resident was not statistically related to 5-year implant survival in simple logistic regression analysis (P = 0.171).

show abstract

Influence of implant neck design and implant–abutment connection type on peri‐implant health. Radiological study

Cited by 96 publications

References 36 publications

Peri-Implant Bone Loss of External Hexagon and Morse Taper in Patients Wearing Immediately Loaded Overdentures

Peri-Implant Bone Loss of External Hexagon and Morse Taper in Patients Wearing Immediately Loaded Overdentures

Influencia del Diseño Micro y Macroscópico de la Región Cervical del Implante en la Preservación de Hueso Marginal Perimplantario: Una Revisión Sistemática

Factors associated with the survival and marginal bone loss of dental implants: a 5-year retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About