Cargando…

Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pellicer-Chover, Hilario, Peñarrocha-Diago, María, Peñarrocha-Oltra, David, Gomar-Vercher, Sonia, Agustín-Panadero, Rubén, Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26615504
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.20747
_version_ 1782417566834098176
author Pellicer-Chover, Hilario
Peñarrocha-Diago, María
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Gomar-Vercher, Sonia
Agustín-Panadero, Rubén
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
author_facet Pellicer-Chover, Hilario
Peñarrocha-Diago, María
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Gomar-Vercher, Sonia
Agustín-Panadero, Rubén
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
author_sort Pellicer-Chover, Hilario
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The patients were randomized into two treatment groups: group A (implants placed at crestal level) or group B (implants placed at subcrestal level). Control visits were conducted by a trained clinician at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. A previously established standard protocol was used to compile general data on all patients (sex and age, implant length and diameter, and brushing frequency). Implant success rate, peri-implant bone loss and the treatment of the exposed implant surface were studied. The level of statistical significance was defined as 5% (α=0.05). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (8 males and 15 females, mean age 49.8±11.6 years, range 28-75 years) were included in the final data analyses, while three were excluded. All the included subjects were nonsmokers with a brushing frequency of up to twice a day in 85.7% of the cases. The 23 implants comprised 10 crestal implants and 13 subcrestal implants. After implant placement, the mean bone position with respect to the implant platform in group A was 0.0 mm versus 2.16±0.88 mm in group B. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean bone positions were -0.06±1.11 mm and 0.95±1.50 mm, respectively - this representing a bone loss of 0.06±1.11 mm in the case of the crestal implants and of 1.22±1.06 mm in the case of the subcrestal implants (p=0.014). Four crestal implants and 5 subcrestal implants presented peri-implant bone levels below the platform, leaving a mean exposed treated surface of 1.13 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively. The implant osseointegration success rate at 12 months was 100% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, bone loss was found to be greater in the case of the subcrestal implants, though from the clinical perspective these implants presented bone levels above the implant platform after 12 months of follow-up. Key words:Immediate implants, tooth extraction, dental implants, single-tooth, crestal bone, placement level.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4765755
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47657552016-02-25 Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study Pellicer-Chover, Hilario Peñarrocha-Diago, María Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Gomar-Vercher, Sonia Agustín-Panadero, Rubén Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Research BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The patients were randomized into two treatment groups: group A (implants placed at crestal level) or group B (implants placed at subcrestal level). Control visits were conducted by a trained clinician at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. A previously established standard protocol was used to compile general data on all patients (sex and age, implant length and diameter, and brushing frequency). Implant success rate, peri-implant bone loss and the treatment of the exposed implant surface were studied. The level of statistical significance was defined as 5% (α=0.05). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (8 males and 15 females, mean age 49.8±11.6 years, range 28-75 years) were included in the final data analyses, while three were excluded. All the included subjects were nonsmokers with a brushing frequency of up to twice a day in 85.7% of the cases. The 23 implants comprised 10 crestal implants and 13 subcrestal implants. After implant placement, the mean bone position with respect to the implant platform in group A was 0.0 mm versus 2.16±0.88 mm in group B. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean bone positions were -0.06±1.11 mm and 0.95±1.50 mm, respectively - this representing a bone loss of 0.06±1.11 mm in the case of the crestal implants and of 1.22±1.06 mm in the case of the subcrestal implants (p=0.014). Four crestal implants and 5 subcrestal implants presented peri-implant bone levels below the platform, leaving a mean exposed treated surface of 1.13 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively. The implant osseointegration success rate at 12 months was 100% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, bone loss was found to be greater in the case of the subcrestal implants, though from the clinical perspective these implants presented bone levels above the implant platform after 12 months of follow-up. Key words:Immediate implants, tooth extraction, dental implants, single-tooth, crestal bone, placement level. Medicina Oral S.L. 2016-01 2015-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4765755/ /pubmed/26615504 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.20747 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Pellicer-Chover, Hilario
Peñarrocha-Diago, María
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Gomar-Vercher, Sonia
Agustín-Panadero, Rubén
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study
title Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study
title_full Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study
title_fullStr Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study
title_short Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study
title_sort impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26615504
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.20747
work_keys_str_mv AT pellicerchoverhilario impactofcrestalandsubcrestalimplantplacementinperiimplantboneaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT penarrochadiagomaria impactofcrestalandsubcrestalimplantplacementinperiimplantboneaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT penarrochaoltradavid impactofcrestalandsubcrestalimplantplacementinperiimplantboneaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT gomarverchersonia impactofcrestalandsubcrestalimplantplacementinperiimplantboneaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT agustinpanaderoruben impactofcrestalandsubcrestalimplantplacementinperiimplantboneaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT penarrochadiagomiguel impactofcrestalandsubcrestalimplantplacementinperiimplantboneaprospectivecomparativestudy