6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time ( follow-up: t 1 = 12 vs. t 2 = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth ( p = 0.015) and bone loss ( p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars).

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review.

          During the last decades, several changes of paradigm have modified our view on how biomaterials' surface characteristics influence the bioresponse. After becoming aware of the role of a certain microroughness for improved cellular contact and osseointegration of dental titanium implants, the likewise important role of surface energy and wettability was increasingly strengthened. Very recently, synergistic effects of nanoscaled topographical features and hydrophilicity at the implant/bone interface have been reported.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction?

            When a foreign body is placed in bone or soft tissue, an inflammatory reaction inevitably develops. Hence, osseointegration is but a foreign body response to the implant, which according to classic pathology is a chronic inflammatory response and characterized by bone embedding/separation of the implant from the body.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Factors Influencing Early Dental Implant Failures.

              The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of local and systemic factors on the occurrence of dental implant failures up to the second-stage surgery (abutment connection). This retrospective study is based on 2,670 patients who received 10,096 implants and were consecutively treated with implant-supported prostheses between 1980 and 2014 at 1 specialist clinic. Several anatomic-, patient-, health-, and implant-related factors were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the patients and implants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used at the patient level as well as the implant level to evaluate the effect of explanatory variables on the failure of implants up to abutment connection. A generalized estimating equation method was used for the implant-level analysis to account for the fact that repeated observations (several implants) were available for a single patient. Overall, 642 implants (6.36%) failed, of which 176 (1.74%) in 139 patients were lost up to second-stage surgery. The distribution of implants in sites of different bone quantities and qualities was quite similar between implants lost up to and after abutment connection. Smoking and the intake of antidepressants were the statistically significant predictors in the multivariate model (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02369562).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Materials (Basel)
                Materials (Basel)
                materials
                Materials
                MDPI
                1996-1944
                25 February 2020
                March 2020
                : 13
                : 5
                : 1029
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dental School, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy; ferrini.f@ 123456gmail.com (F.F.); gherlone.enrico@ 123456hsr.it (E.G.); cappare.paolo@ 123456hsr.it (P.C.)
                [2 ]Department of Dentistry, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, 20132 Milan, Italy
                [3 ]UniSR-Social.Lab (Research Methods), Faculty of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy; pantaleo.giuseppe@ 123456hsr.it
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3743-1317
                Article
                materials-13-01029
                10.3390/ma13051029
                7084739
                32106401
                1d112825-d27d-4788-8349-bd8c7862309b
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 24 December 2019
                : 20 February 2020
                Categories
                Article

                dental implants,dental implant neck design,peri-implant bone loss,peri-implant probing depth

                Comments

                Comment on this article