Marginal bone loss around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year

Abstract

This study was designed to radiographically evaluate the effect of surface macro-and microstructures within the coronal portion of the external hex implant at the marginal bone change after loading. The fifty-four patients included in the study were randomly assigned to treatment groups with rough-surface implants (TiUnite, n = 45), a hybrid of smooth and rough surface implants (Restore, n = 45) or rough-surface with microthreads implants (Hexplant, n = 45). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at the time of implant loading (baseline) and at 1-year post-loading. A three-level mixed-effect ancova was used to test the significance of the mean marginal bone change of the three implant groups from baseline to 1-year follow-up. At 1-year, significant differences were noted in marginal bone loss recorded for the three groups (P < 0.0001). The rough surface with microthread implants had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.42 +/- 0.27 mm; the rough surface implants, 0.81 +/- 0.27 mm; and the hybrid surface implants, 0.89 +/- 0.41 mm. Within the limitations of this study, a rough surface with microthreads at the coronal part of implant maintained the marginal bone level against functional loading better than implants without these two features.

A 5-Year Comparison of Marginal Bone Level following Immediate Loading of Single-ToothImplants Placed in Healed Alveolar Ridgesand Extraction Sockets in the Maxilla

“…Interestingly, some bone loss was regained after a period of 5 years. MBL values reported in this study were lower compared to other studies with similar observation periods (Boronat et al, 2008;Collaert and De Bruyn, 2008;Testori et al, 2008;Tözüm et al, 2008;Bergkvist et al, 2009;Piao et al, 2009;Song et al, 2009). Bone loss for healed sites (group I) in our study was about 0.266 ± 0.176 mm while with another study it showed an increase of up to 0.78 mm (Ericsson et al, 2000), which can be explained by the formation of the biological width (Hermann et al, 2001).…”

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

“…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).…”

Clinical and scanning electron microscopic analysis of fractured dental implants: a retrospective clinical analysis

“…Such bone loss may be attributable to the lack of effective mechanical loading between the machined coronal region of the implant and the surrounding bone. According to Piao et al 17 , the machined surfaces of hybrid-design implants were associated with more bone loss than those of rough-surface implants. Apparently the most important indicator of the start of an implant fracture, such marginal bone reabsorption may often extend beyond the actual fracture line.…”

“…Galvanic implant corrosion can also contribute to fractures 17,18 . Corrosion of the metal crown may be caused or accele rated by differences in the electric potentials of the implant (made of pure titanium) and the crown (made of placed in posterior sites) reported no fixture fractures 13 .…”

“…machined surface in the coronal region is more readily debrided of biofilm, a hybrid design was assumed to ensure better mucosal health and lower the risk of peri-implant diseases of osseointegrated implants 17 . A recent study found a positive correlation between the amount of bone loss after 6 months and the length of the machined surface for various implant systems; thus relating bone loss to the level of the "second thread."…”