Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery
Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 3/2014

01-09-2014 | Research Paper

Retrospective Clinical Study of Marginal Bone Level Changes with Two Different Screw-Implant Types: Comparison Between Tissue Level (TE) and Bone Level (BL) Implant

Authors: Vinay V. Kumar, Keyvan Sagheb, Peer W. Kämmerer, Bilal Al-Nawas, Wilfried Wagner

Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the amount of marginal bone loss (MBL) in a bone-level and a soft-tissue-level implant system, both of which have similar intra-bony shape and surface composition. A subgroup analysis was done to compare the amount of MBL of each implant type in relation to the different vertical placement within the respective groups of implants.

Materials and Methods

Records of all patients who underwent implantation for replacement of teeth using comparable bone level (BL) and soft tissue level implants (TE) from 1st January 2006 to 31st December 2009 were scrutinized. Initial depth of implant placement (IDIP) was measured for all implants. Marginal bone loss was measured in patients whose records were available at time point corresponding to 12, 24 and 36 months post insertion.

Results

Out of a total of 384 implants, 337 implants were included for study. The mean MBL for the BL implants were 0.3, 0.38, 0.48 and for TE implant were 0.6, 0.54 and 0.93 for time periods 12, 24 and 36 months respectively. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at time periods at 6–12 months, in later time periods, there was a slightly greater amount of MBL around TE implants as compared to BL implants (p < 0.001). When comparing the IDIP and MBL in the same implant type, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) positive correlation between the depth of implant placement and the amount of MBL, with deeper placed implants having more bone loss.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this retrospective cohort study design, one can conclude that BL implants had statistically significant lesser MBL as compared to TE in time periods above 12 months. Although the difference is statistically significant, the difference may not be clinically significant. The IDIP had an influence on the amount of MBL, with deeper placed implants and screw structure of the implant placed below the bone, having more MBL in the period of study.
Literature
1.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR (1986) The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1:11–25PubMed
2.
Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH (2010) Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 81:1350–1366PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL (2001) Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:559–571PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL (2001) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:475–485PubMed
6.
Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2001) Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 72:1372–1383PubMedCrossRef
7.
Al-Nawas B, Kämmerer PW, Morbach T, Ophoven F, Wagner W (2001) Retrospective clinical evaluation of an internal tube-in-tube dental implant after 4 years, with special emphasis on peri-implant bone resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:1309–1316
8.
Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL (2000) Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:1–11PubMedCrossRef
9.
Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfeild J, Buser D, Hammerle CH, Cochran DL (2008) The influence of non matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. J Periodontol 79:260–270PubMedCrossRef
10.
Enkling N, Jöhren P, Klimberg V, Bayer S, Mericske-Stern R, Jepsen S (2011) Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone levels: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1185–1192PubMedCrossRef
11.
Canullo L, Quaranta A, Teles RP (2010) The microbiota associated with implants restored with platform switching: a preliminary report. J Periodontol 81:403–411PubMedCrossRef
12.
Weng D, Nagata MJH, Bell M, Bosco AF, de Melo LGN, Richter EJ (2008) Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1141–1147PubMedCrossRef
13.
Degidi M, Perrotti V, Shibli JA, Novaes AB, Piatelli A, Iezzi G (2011) Equicrestal and subcrestal dental implants: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of nine retrieved human implants. J Periodontol 82:708–715PubMedCrossRef
14.
Novaes AB Jr, Barros RR, Mugila VA, Borges GJ (2009) Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on papilla formation and crestal resorption: a clinical and radiographic study in dogs. J Oral Implantol 35:18–27PubMedCrossRef
15.
Barros RR, Novaes AB Jr, Mugila VA, Iezzi G, Piattelli A (2010) Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on peri-implant bone remodeling of adjacent and immediately loaded Morse cone connection implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:371–378PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zechner W, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Watzek G (2003) Rotational panoramic versus intraoral rectangular radiographs for evaluation of peri-implant bone loss in the anterior atrophic mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:873–878PubMed
17.
Kullman L, Al-Asfour A, Zetterqvist L, Andersson L (2007) Comparison of radiographic bone heights assessments in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:96–100PubMed
18.
Al-Nawas B, Brägger U, Meijer HJ, Naert I, Persson R, Perucchi A, Quirynen A, Raghoebar GM, Reichert TE, Romeo E, Santing HJ, Schimmel M, Storelli S, Bruggenkate CT, Vandekerckhove B, Wagner W, Wismeijer D, Müller F (2012) A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of titanium-13zirconium versus titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles—results from a 1-year observation period. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 14:896–904CrossRef
19.
Lazzara RJ, Porter SS (2006) Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling post restorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2006:9–17
20.
Canullo L, Fedele GR, Iannello G, Jepsen S (2010) Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a randomized-controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:115–121PubMedCrossRef
21.
Buser D, Wittneben J, Bornstein MM, Grütter L, Chappuis V, Belser UC (2011) Stability of contour augmentation and esthetic outcomes of implant-supported single crowns in the esthetic zone: 3-year results of a prospective study with early implant placement postextraction. J Periodontol 82:342–349PubMedCrossRef
22.
Wennström JL, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J (2005) Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 32:567–574PubMedCrossRef
23.
Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D (2004) AICRG, Part II: crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol 30:134–143PubMedCrossRef
24.
Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M (2007) Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 18:581–584PubMedCrossRef
25.
Canay S, Akca K (2009) Biomechanical aspects of bone-level diameter shifting at implant–abutment interface. Implant Dent 18:239–248PubMedCrossRef
26.
Cocchetto R, Traini T, Caddeo F, Celletti R (2010) Evaluation of hard tissue response around wider platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 30:163–171
27.
Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R (2008) Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 28:347–355
28.
Buser D, von Arx T (2000) Surgical procedures in partially edentulous patients with ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 11(Suppl 1):83–100PubMedCrossRef
29.
Pontes AEF, Ribeiro FS, Iezzi G, Piattelli A, Cirelli JA, Marcantonio E (2008) Biologic width changes around loaded implants inserted in different levels in relation to crestal bone: histometric evaluation in canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:483–490PubMedCrossRef
30.
Pontes AEF, Ribeiro FS, da Silva VC, Margonar R, Piattelli A, Cirelli JA, Marcantonio E (2008) Clinical and radiographic changes around dental implants inserted in different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different restoration protocols, in the dog model. J Periodontol 79:486–494PubMedCrossRef
31.
Todescan FF, Pustiglioni FE, Imbronito AV, Albrektsson T, Gioso M (2002) Influence of the microgap in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:467–472PubMed
32.
Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2006) Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant–abutment interface. J Dent Res 85:473–478PubMedCrossRef
33.
Callan DP, Cobb CM, Williams KB (2005) DNA probe identification of bacteria colonizing internal surfaces of the implant–abutment interface: a preliminary study. J Periodontol 76:115–120PubMedCrossRef
34.
Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D (1993) Bacterial colonization of the internal part of the two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 4:158–161PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Retrospective Clinical Study of Marginal Bone Level Changes with Two Different Screw-Implant Types: Comparison Between Tissue Level (TE) and Bone Level (BL) Implant
Authors
Vinay V. Kumar
Keyvan Sagheb
Peer W. Kämmerer
Bilal Al-Nawas
Wilfried Wagner
Publication date
01-09-2014
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0972-8279
Electronic ISSN: 0974-942X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-013-0532-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 3/2014 Go to the issue

Clinical Paper

The Efficacy of ErCr:YSGG Laser Fibrotomy in Management of Moderate Oral Submucous Fibrosis: A Preliminary Study

Research Paper

Efficacy of Temporomandibular Joint Arthrocentesis on Mouth Opening and Pain in the Treatment of Internal Derangement of TMJ—A Clinical Study

Research Paper

Efficacy and Feasibility of Frontozygomatic Angle Approach for Extra Oral Maxillary Nerve Block in Oral Surgery: A Descriptive Clinical Trial

Research Paper

Demographic Study of Prevalence of Systemic Diseases in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Patients of Central India

Research Paper

Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) Expression in Different Subtypes of Ameloblastoma

Comparative Study

Comparison of Stability of Fracture Segments in Mandible Fracture Treated with Different Designs of Mini-Plates Using FEM Analysis