The Effect of Implant Neck Design on the Crestal Bone Levels that Support the Tissue Around the Implant –Restoration
American Journal of Biomedical and Life Sciences
Volume 3, Issue 4, August 2015, Pages: 75-83
Received: May 24, 2015;
Accepted: Jun. 6, 2015;
Published: Jun. 19, 2015
Views 5698 Downloads 111
Nazih Issa, Department of Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Tishreen University, Latakia, Syria
Naser Bahrli, Department of Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Tishreen University, Latakia, Syria
Modar Ahmad, Department of Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Tishreen University, Latakia, Syria
This research aims to evaluate the impact of the shape of the implant neck on the level of crestal bone surrounding it. Dental implant surgeries were performed, and prosthesis were placed over (28) implants in six jaws for five patients (5 upper jaws and 1 lower jaw). These dental implant surgeries were performed on the jaws such that one of the sides received 2 or 3 implants from the BICON system with beveled neck, while the opposite side received the same number of implants from the ONB system from IDI with non-beveled neck. The implant-restorations were then performed following complete osseointegration. The patients were observed via periodic panoramic radiographs starting from the day the prosthesis were placed, then 3 months after the restoration, 6 months after the restoration and 18 months after the restoration. The distance between the implant neck and the point of contact of the crestal bone with the implant neck (mesial and distal) was measured for each implant using periodic panoramic radiographs taken for every patient. The results revealed the occurrence of peri-implant crestal bone loss, known as the saucerization phenomenon. Independent samples T-test was conducted to compare the mean bone loss with both types of implants mentioned above. The results of the study did not show any statistically significant differences in the early stages of the restoration/prosthesis. Yet, after 6 months and up to 18 months post restoration, statistically significant differences emerged verifying that the peri-implant bone loss occurring in implants with a beveled neck was less than that occurring around implants with a non-beveled neck, confirming the incidence of an initial bone loss following the restoration in all cases. This research revealed that the design of the implant yields better esthetic results in the presence of a bevel in the implant neck, taking into consideration the occurrence of a definite bone loss.
The Effect of Implant Neck Design on the Crestal Bone Levels that Support the Tissue Around the Implant –Restoration, American Journal of Biomedical and Life Sciences.
Vol. 3, No. 4,
2015, pp. 75-83.
Issa, Nazih. The dental implantation according to osseointegration- clinical evaluation-. Damascus University, Syria. 1994,pp.146.
Jan Lindhe, Niklaus P.Lang, Thorkild Karring. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. s.l. : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, pp. 7.
Bengazi, F., Wennstro¨m, J. & Lekholm, U. Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants.A 2-year longitudinal prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1996, pp. 303–310.
Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol . 1997, Vol. 68, pp. 1117-1130.
Nishimura RD, Chang TL, Perri GR, Beumer J 3rd. Restoration of partially edentulous patients using customized implant abutments. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 6, 1999, Vol. Aug 11, pp. 669-76.
Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005, Vol. 6, 16, pp. 639-44.
Heydenrijk, K., Meijer, H. J., van der Reijden, W. A., Raghoebar, G. M., Vissink, A. & Stegenga, B. Microbiota around root-form endosseous implants: a review of the literature. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2002, Vol. 17, p. 829.
Herman, M. R., Dornbusch, S.M., Herron, M.C., & Herting, J.R. The influence of Family Regulation, Connection, and Psychological Autonomy on Six Measures of Adolescent Functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research. 1997, Vol. 12, pp. 34-67.
Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically . 2000a.
Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001a, Vol. 12, pp. 559-571.
Nickenig, H.J., Wichmann, M., Schlegel, K.A., Nkenke, E.&Eitner, S. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2009, Vol. 20, pp. 550-554.
Bratu, E.A., Tandlich, M. & Shapira, L. A rough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: a prospective clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2009, Vol. 20, pp. 827-832.
Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E. The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol. 75, 2004, pp. 511-516.
Wagenberg BD, Froum SJ, Eckert SE. Long-term bone stability assessment around 1,187 immediately placed implants with 1- to 22-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013, Vol. 2, 28, pp. 605-12.
Canullo L, Fedele GR, Iannello G, Jepsen S. Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a randomizedcontrolled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010, Vol. 21, pp. 115-21.
Fickl S, Zuhr O, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010, Vol. 25, p. 577.
Veis A, Parissis N, Tsirlis A, Papadeli C, Marinis G, Zogakis A. Evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss using modified abutment connections at various crestal level placements. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010, Vol. 30, pp. 609-17.
Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels around platform-switched and non-platformswitched implants used in an immediate loading protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009, Vol. 24, pp. 920-6.
Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006, Vol. 26, pp. 9-17.
Misch, Carl E. CONTEMPORARY IMPLANT DENTISTRY. Third Edition. Canada : MOSBY ELSEVIER, 2008, pp. 72.
al., Tarnow DP et. The effect of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence or absence of the interproximal dental papilla. J Periodontol. 1992.
Wu, Yu-Jen, Tu1, Yu-Kang and Huang2, Shay-Min. The Influence of the Distance from the Contact Point to the Crest of Bone on the Presence of the Interproximal Dental Papilla. Chang Gung Med. 2003.
Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, Favero GA, Piattelli A. Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: an in vivo human study. J Periodontol. 2004, Vol. 75, pp. 292-296.
Linish Vidyasagar, Peteris Apse. Dental Implant Design and Biological Effects on Bone-Implant Interface. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2004, Vol. 6.
Jan Lindhe, Niklaus P.Lang, Thorkild Karring. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. s.l. : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, pp.1048.
Aloy-Prósper A1, Maestre-Ferrín L, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: an update. 2011, Vol. 3, 16.