World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Crestal Bone Changes around Soft Tissue Level versus Bone Level Dental Implant Loaded with Single Crown: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Aiman O Johar

Keywords : Microgap, Submerged implant,Crestal bone

Citation Information : Johar AO. Crestal Bone Changes around Soft Tissue Level versus Bone Level Dental Implant Loaded with Single Crown: A Randomized Clinical Trial. World J Dent 2019; 10 (2):84-87.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1609

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Crestal bone level surrounding a dental implant is a dynamic structure due to bone remodeling and possible bone loss after implant loading. The study aims to compare the bone changes around single implants 1.8 mm machined collar soft tissue level versus bone level implant with nonmachined collar all roughed surface placed either in the maxilla or the mandible at 3–6 years Materials and methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted among 100 patients needing dental implants. The participants were randomly divided into two study groups; group 1 received bone level implants. Group 2 received soft tissue level implants (1.8 mm machined surface). After three months of the healing period, the implants were loaded with a screw-retained single crown. The initial measurement was done at three years and repeat measurements were recorded after six years. Statistical analysis was performed by paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test. Statistical significance was considered at α = 0.05. Results: The bone measurements for the soft tissue level implant at three years and six years were 0.556 ± 0.2742 mm and 1.172 ± 0.6128 mm, respectively while those for the bone level implant were 0.668 ± 0.3178 mm and 1.366 ± 0.8163 mm, respectively. The intragroup comparison revealed that there was a statistically significant rise in the measurement at the 6-year evaluation as compared to the three-year evaluation for both the type of implants. However, the intergroup comparison revealed no statistically significant difference in the bone measurement between the two implant types at both three years and 6-year measurements. Conclusion: There is no difference in the bone changes around single implants placed either at soft tissue level or at the bone level. Clinical significance: The choice of implant should be based on the esthetic requirement of the patient as well as the clinician\'s expertise.


PDF Share
  1. Buser DA, Schroeder A, Sutter F, et al. The new concept of ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants: Part 2. Clinical aspects, indications, and early clinical results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:173-181.
  2. Sutter F, Schroeder A, Buser DA. The new concept of ITI hollowcylinder and hollow-screw implants: Part 1. Engineering and design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:161-172.
  3. Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger U. The treatment of partially edentulous patients with ITI hollow-screw implants: Presurgical evaluation and surgical procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:165-175.
  4. Hess D, Buser D, Dietschi D, et al. Esthetic single-tooth replacement with implants: A team approach. Quintessence Int 1998;29:77-86
  5. Al-Sayyed A, Deporter DA, Pilliar RM, et al. Predictable crestal bone remodelling around two porous-coated titanium alloy dental implant designs. A radiographic study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:131-141.
  6. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:1117-1130.
  7. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2000;71:1412-1424.
  8. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:475-485.
  9. Hammerle CH, Bragger U, Burgin W, et al. The effect of subcrestal placement of the polished surface of ITI implants on marginal soft and hard tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:111-119.
  10. Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, et al. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:186-198.
  11. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:1-11.
  12. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:559-571
  13. Hanggi MP, Hanggi DC, Schoolfield JD, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: a retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. Journal of Periodontology. 2005 May;76(5):791-802.
  14. Den Hartog L, Meijer HJA, Stegenga B, et al. Single implants with different neck designs in the aesthetic zone: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1289-1297.
  15. Den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, et al. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:1073- 1086.
  16. Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, et al. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol 2009;80:140-151.
  17. Ako.lu Vanl.o.lu B, Kahramano.lu E, Y.ld.z C, et al. Esthetic outcome evaluation of maxillary anterior single-tooth bone-level implants with metal or ceramic abutments and ceramic crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014 Sep 1;29(5).
  18. Chang M, Wennstrom JL. Longitudinal changes in tooth/singleimplant relationship and bone topography: an 8-year retrospective analysis. Clin Implants Dent Rel Res 2012;14(3):388-394.
  19. Hartman GA, Cochran DL. Initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. J Periodontol 2004;75(4):572- 577.
  20. Valderrama P, Bornstein MM, Jones AA, et al. Effects of Implant Design on Marginal Bone Changes Around Early Loaded, Chemically Modified, Sandblasted Acid-Etched. Surfaced Implants: A Histologic Analysis in Dogs. J Periodontol 2011;82(7):1025-1034.
  21. Schwarz F, Hegewald A, Becker J. Impact of the implant. abutment connection and positioning of the machined collar/microgap on crestal bone level changes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(4):417-425.
  22. Cochran DL, Bosshardt DD, Grize L, et al. Bone response to loaded implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2009;80(4):609-617.
  23. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, et al. 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 2001; 72(10):1372-1383.
  24. Hermann JS, Jones AA, Bakaeen LG, et al. Influence of a machined collar on crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2011;82(9):1329-1338.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.