Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial

Abstract

Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty-three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty-two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide-based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone-level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one-way anova and independent samples t-test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, P = 0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (P > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA-based restorations (P = 0·003) at 3 months, (P = 0·038), at 6 months and (P = 0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (P = 0·629) at 3 months, (P = 0·974) at 6 months and (P = 1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.

Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Restored with Zirconium vis-à-vis Porcelain Fused to Metal: An In Vivo Study

“…He stated that implants rehabilitated with Zirconia crowns showed less bone loss as compared with those rehabilitated with PFM crowns. 10 The two indices chosen to assess the clinical health of gingiva were gingival index and mean SBI. The statistical findings for both the control group and the test group came out to be not significant.…”

“…Refraining from ceramic or even metal surfaces was assumed to be of critical importance. 10 Ceramic systems have better biocompatibility and esthetic properties but its brittleness has led to more use of Zirconia-based ceramics in recent years. High-mechanical performance, durability, and resistance are the key features of Zirconia-based ceramics.…”

Perda óssea marginal peri-implantar: uma revisão de literatura

“…22,23 Quanto ao conceito de plataforma switching, a POM variou de 0,04 ± 0,50 e 0,832 ± 0,4427 mm e 0,42 ± 0,11 para 1,358 ± 0,3939 mm para a plataforma convencional. 13,17,18,25,26 dIscussão A eliminação ou a redução da POM ao redor de implantes dentários é o objetivo de várias estratégias de modificação do procedimento cirúrgico, alteração da superfície e morfologia do implante, tipo de conexão implante-pilar, entre outros. 18 Implantes instalados ao nível da crista óssea exibiram maiores quantidades de POM abaixo da plataforma comparados com implantes colocados 1 ou 2 mm abaixo do nível da crista óssea.…”

“…Por sua vez, a POM em torno dos grupos PFMN e ZBC (porcelana com base em óxido de zircônia) não diferiu estatisticamente. 25 O conceito de plataforma switching é considerado uma estratégia para minimizar a POM, utilizando um abutment com um diâmetro menor do que o diâmetro do ombro do implante, de modo que o micro-gap é localizado mais distante do primeiro contato entre o ossoimplante. Essa configuração resulta em um passo horizontal circular, que pode permitir uma extensão horizontal do espaço biológico.…”

Effects of uncontrolled periodontitis on marginal bone alterations around implants: A case‐control study

“…[14][15][16][17] However, recent clinical studies show that multiple factors involved in crestal bone loss around implant are difficult to be explained by the infectious hypothesis, such as concomitant systemic diseases, 18 soft tissue thickness, 19,20 the interimplant distance, 21 implant location, 22 the crown-implant ratio, 23,24 the different implant system used, 25 implant neck design, 26 the implant surface topography, 27 antagonistic occlusion, 28 or the characteristics of the prosthesis. 29 Furthermore, Albrektsson and colleagues 30 described the loss of bone surrounding an implant may be initiated by breakdown of a foreign body equilibrium and followed by a secondary biofilm-mediated infection.…”