Marginal bone level and biologic width dynamics in tissue-level and bone-level implants

Abstract Objective Several modifications, such as changes in the implant–abutment connection, have been suggested in studies on dental implants to better preserve the peri-implant bone level. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare crestal bone level changes between two different implant designs—tissue level (TL) and bone level (BL). Materials and Methods The sample comprised 18 patients, on whom a total of 30 hydrophilic tissue- and bone level implants were placed (SLActive, Straumann Institut AG, Basel, Switzerland), in the posterior region of the maxilla or the mandible. Impressions were taken after 45 days of healing. Then, cemented-retained metalloceramic crowns were fabricated and installed. Marginal bone level changes were assessed by the paralleling technique of periapical radiographies, on both mesial and distal aspects of each implant, at the moment of the implant placement and after 1 year of loading. Photoshop software was used to perform linear measurements by a single and calibrated examiner. Statistical Analysis The Mann–Whitney test at a 5% significance level was used to compare the bone changes among the implants assessed. Results A significantly lower (p = 0.048) bone remodeling was observed on bone level implants (0.05 mm), when compared to tissue level implants (0.47 mm; p = 0.048). The average marginal bone level changes at the distal aspect did not show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.325). Conclusions Tissue level implants presented greater bone loss in the mesial surface than bone level implants. Both designs presented stable and clinically acceptable bone crests.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery ◽

10.1007/s12663-013-0532-5 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. 259-266 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Vinay V. Kumar ◽

Keyvan Sagheb ◽

Peer W. Kämmerer ◽

Bilal Al-Nawas ◽

Wilfried Wagner

Keyword(s):

Clinical Study ◽

Tissue Level ◽

Retrospective Clinical Study ◽

Bone Level ◽

Marginal Bone Level

Download Full-text

Marginal Bone Level Around Implants With Definitive Abutments

Case Medical Research ◽

10.31525/ct1-nct04230837 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Bone Level ◽

Marginal Bone Level

Download Full-text

Peri-Implant Behavior of Tissue Level Dental Implants with a Convergent Neck

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18105232 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (10) ◽

pp. 5232

Author(s):

Rubén Agustín-Panadero ◽

Irene Bermúdez-Mulet ◽

Lucía Fernández-Estevan ◽

María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz ◽

Rocío Marco-Pitarch ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Statistical Analysis ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Tissue Level ◽

Functional Load ◽

Implant Placement ◽

Group I ◽

Bone Level ◽

Single Crowns ◽

Functional Loading

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the radiographic peri-implant bone loss of bone level implants and tissue level implants with a convergent neck in screw-retained single crowns and in screw-retained fixed partial prostheses, after two years of functional loading. Materials and methods: The sample was divided into two groups according to their type: Group I: supracrestal implants with convergent transmucosal neck; Group II: crestal implants. In each group we distinguish two subgroups according to the type of prosthetic restoration: single crowns and a three-piece fixed partial prosthesis on two implants. To quantify bone loss, parallelized periapical radiographs were analyzed at the time of implant placement and after two years of functional load. Results: A total of 120 implants were placed in 53 patients. After statistical analysis it was observed that for each type of implant bone loss was 0.97 ± 0.91 mm for bone level and 0.31 ± 0.48 mm for tissue level. No significant differences were found regarding the type of prosthesis and the location (maxilla or mandible) of the implants. Conclusions: Tissue level implants with a convergent transepithelial neck exhibit less peri-implant bone loss than bone level implants regardless of the type of prosthesis.

Download Full-text

A Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Immediate vs. Early Loading (4 Weeks) of Implants with a New Thermo-Chemically Treated Surface: A Randomized Clinical Trial

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18031223 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (3) ◽

pp. 1223

Author(s):

Matteo Albertini ◽

Federico Herrero-Climent ◽

Carmen María Díaz-Castro ◽

Jose Nart ◽

Ana Fernández-Palacín ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Data ◽

Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Early Loading ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Bone Level ◽

Marginal Bone Level ◽

Implant Dentistry ◽

Edentulous Patients ◽

Group B

Background: Implant dentistry has evolved over time, resulting in better treatment outcomes for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this trial was to test whether the immediate loading of implants with a platform-switching design influences the marginal bone level, compared to four-week loading, after one year of follow-up. Moreover, a comparison of clinical data regarding implant survival, implant stability, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was conducted. Methods: Klockner® VEGA® implants with a ContacTi® surface were placed in partially edentulous patients in the posterior areas. Group A received an immediately loaded prosthesis (one week) and Group B received an early-loaded prosthesis (four weeks). All abutments were placed at the time of surgery. Radiographic and clinical data were recorded. Results: Twenty-one patients were treated (35 implants). No implants were lost during the study. The final marginal bone level did not show differences between groups. The bone loss at 12 months at the implant level was 0.00 mm for both groups (median). The final implant quotient stability (ISQ) values did not differ between groups (median 73 and 70.25), nor did the other clinical parameters or PROMs. Conclusions: The results suggest that neither of the loading protocols with the implants used influenced the marginal bone level—not the osseointegration rate, clinical conditions, or PROMs.

Download Full-text