scholarly journals Effect of different implant‐abutment mismatch sizes on marginal bone loss ‐ prospective clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
Roberto Pessoa ◽  
Ravel Sousa ◽  
Leandro Pereira ◽  
Eduardo Emi Shah ◽  
Guilherme Oliveira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Prospective Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Abutment

scholarly journals Effect of different implant neck designs on marginal bone loss–5‐years prospective clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 325-325
Author(s):  
Guilherme Oliveira ◽  
Ravel Souza ◽  
Leandro Pereira ◽  
Eduardo Tadashi ◽  
Fábio Bezerra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Prospective Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Marginal bone loss around external hex and Morse‐taper implants – 5‐years prospective clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 326-326
Author(s):  
Roberto Pessoa ◽  
Guilherme Oliveira ◽  
Leandro Pereira ◽  
Ravel Souza ◽  
Eduardo Tadashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Prospective Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Influence of surface treatment on marginal bone loss–5‐years prospective clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 324-324
Author(s):  
Fábio Bezerra ◽  
Guilherme Oliveira ◽  
Ravel Souza ◽  
Leandro Pereira ◽  
Eduardo Tadashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Prospective Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

Influence of abutment disconnection on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciano de Freitas Guimarães Praça ◽  
Renata Cordeiro Teixeira ◽  
Rodrigo Otavio Rego
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Does Implant-Abutment Interface affect Marginal Bone Levels around Implants?

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 047-052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eser Elemek ◽  
Artun Urgancioglu ◽  
Janberd Dincer ◽  
Altug Cilingir
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Implant Abutment ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Switch Group

Abstract Objective The use of dental implants with different types of surface roughness and implant-abutment interface has brought about a situation of marginal bone loss. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze and compare marginal bone levels of different types of osseointegrated dental implants with platform switch (Group A: Ankylos, Mannheim, Germany) and platform match (Group B: Dentsply Xive, Mannheim, Germany, and Group C: MIS Implant Technologies, Karmiel, Israel). Materials and Methods One hundred and seven patients (52 men and 55 women) with a mean age of 54.79 (standard deviation ± 12.35) years and a total of 321 dental implants (Group A, n = 198; Group B, n = 58; and Group C, n = 65) placed in a private practice between April 2006 and May 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. In addition to demographic information and implant characteristics, marginal bone levels were evaluated by Image J (Wayne Rasband, National Institute of Health, Maryland) program. Results The mean age of all patients was 54.79 ± 12.35 years, and 51.5% of them were women. Implants supporting fixed bridge were most commonly used in all groups (65%), whereas only 20% were restored with a single crown and 15% with overdentures. In total, 47.5% of all implants showed no marginal bone loss. Mean bone loss in Group A was significantly lower (0.81 ± 1.60 mm) as compared to Group B (1.58 ± 1.59 mm) and Group C (1.18 ± 1.36) (p < 0.005). Conclusion Among different types of dental implants, platform switch seems to preserve marginal bone levels and increase the long-term success of dental implants.

scholarly journals One-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Immediately Loaded Short Implants Placed in the Lower Posterior Single Molar Using a Complete Digital Workflow

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeon-Wha Baek ◽  
Young-Jun Lim ◽  
Jungwon Lee ◽  
Ki-Tae Koo ◽  
Myung-Joo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Insertion Torque ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Model Free ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Computer Aided

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to evaluate immediately loaded single implants with varying lengths in the posterior mandible using a fully digital, model-free prosthetic-driven implant planning pathway, and to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short and long implants. The 52 patients with the single tooth missing in the posterior molar regions of the mandible were randomly assigned to the control (CMI IS-III active® long implant; 5.0 × 10 mm) and experimental (CMI IS-III active® short implant; 5.5 × 6.6, 7.3, 8.5 mm) groups. For each patient, a single implant was placed using the computer aided surgical template and all prostheses were fabricated by means of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system on the virtual model. The patients received provisional and definitive monolithic zirconia prostheses at 1 week and 12 weeks after implant surgery, respectively. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements and periapical radiographs were taken and peri-implant parameters were evaluated at 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks after surgery. Nineteen long implants and 27 short implants were finally used for the statistical analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of insertion torque, ISQ values (except 3 weeks), marginal bone loss, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited no stability dip during the early phase of healing. The average marginal bone loss from the baseline of implant placement for the control and experimental groups was −0.07 and 0.03 mm after 12 weeks and 0.06 and 0.05 mm after 48 weeks. All of the soft tissue parameters were within normal limits. Within the limits of the short term follow up, immediate loading of short single implants can be considered as one of predictable treatment modality in mandible with reduced bone height when primary stability can be achieved.

scholarly journals Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Implant Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Younes ◽  
Antoine Berberi ◽  
Nabih Nader ◽  
Maissa Aboulhosn ◽  
Cordahi Manal
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Remodeling ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Stable Connection

ABSTRACT Background The periimplant bone level has been used as one of the criteria to assess the success of dental implants. It has been documented that the bone supporting two-piece implants undergoes resorption first following the second-stage surgery and later on further to abutment connection and delivery of the final prosthesis. Objective The aim of this multicentric randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the crestal bone resorption around internal connection dental implants using a new surgical protocol that aims to respect the biological distance, relying on the benefit of a friction fit connection abutment (test group) compared with implants receiving conventional healing abutments at secondstage surgery (control group). Materials and methods A total of partially edentulous patients were consecutively treated at two private clinics, with two adjacent two-stage implants. Three months after the first surgery, one of the implants was randomly allocated to the control group and was uncovered using a healing abutment, while the other implant received a standard final abutment and was seated and tightened to 30 Ncm. At each step of the prosthetic try-in, the abutment in the test group was removed and then retightened to 30 Ncm. Horizontal bone changes were assessed using periapical radiographs immediately after implant placement and at 3 (second-stage surgery), 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up examinations. Results At 12 months follow-up, no implant failure was reported in both groups. In the control group, the mean periimplant bone resorption was 0.249 ± 0.362 at M3, 0.773 ± 0.413 at M6, 0.904 ± 0.36 at M9 and 1.047 ± 0.395 at M12. The test group revealed a statistically significant lower marginal bone loss of 20.88% at M3 (0.197 ± 0.262), 22.25% at M6 (0.601 ± 0.386), 24.23% at M9 (0.685 ± 0.341) and 19.2% at M9 (0.846 ± 0.454). The results revealed that bone loss increased over time, with the greatest change in bone loss occurring between 3 and 6 months. Alveolar bone loss was significantly greater in the control condition than the test condition. Conclusion The results of this prospective study demonstrated the benefit of placing a prosthetic component with a stable connection at second-stage surgery, in terms of reduced marginal bone remodeling when compared with conventional procedure. Clinical significance. The use of a stable connection in a healing component during try-in stages prior to final restoration placement leads to less periimplant marginal bone loss. How to cite this article Nader N, Aboulhosn M, Berberi A, Manal C, Younes R. Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(1):7-15.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document