Cargando…

Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial

OBJECTIVE: To test whether or not the modified design of the test implant (intended to increase primary stability) has an equivalent effect on MBL compared to the control. METHODS: Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive test or control implants to be installed in identically dimensioned bo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spies, Benedikt C., Bateli, Maria, Ben Rahal, Ghada, Christmann, Marin, Vach, Kirstin, Kohal, Ralf-Joachim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831983/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29610765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8436437
_version_ 1783303242331979776
author Spies, Benedikt C.
Bateli, Maria
Ben Rahal, Ghada
Christmann, Marin
Vach, Kirstin
Kohal, Ralf-Joachim
author_facet Spies, Benedikt C.
Bateli, Maria
Ben Rahal, Ghada
Christmann, Marin
Vach, Kirstin
Kohal, Ralf-Joachim
author_sort Spies, Benedikt C.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To test whether or not the modified design of the test implant (intended to increase primary stability) has an equivalent effect on MBL compared to the control. METHODS: Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive test or control implants to be installed in identically dimensioned bony beds. Implants were radiographically monitored at installation, at prosthetic delivery, and after one year. Treatments were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference (MD) in MBL was in between −0.25 and 0.25 mm. Additionally, several soft tissue parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated. Linear mixed models were fitted for each patient to assess time effects on response variables. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (21 males, 12 females; 58.2 ± 15.2 years old) with 81 implants (47 test, 34 control) were available for analysis after a mean observation period of 13.9 ± 4.5 months (3 dropouts, 3 missed appointments, and 1 missing file). The adjusted MD in MBL after one year was −0.13 mm (90% CI: −0.46–0.19; test group: −0.49; control group: −0.36; p = 0.507). CONCLUSION: Both implant systems can be considered successful after one year of observation. Concerning MBL in the presented setup, equivalence of the treatments cannot be concluded. REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00007877).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5831983
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58319832018-04-02 Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial Spies, Benedikt C. Bateli, Maria Ben Rahal, Ghada Christmann, Marin Vach, Kirstin Kohal, Ralf-Joachim Biomed Res Int Clinical Study OBJECTIVE: To test whether or not the modified design of the test implant (intended to increase primary stability) has an equivalent effect on MBL compared to the control. METHODS: Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive test or control implants to be installed in identically dimensioned bony beds. Implants were radiographically monitored at installation, at prosthetic delivery, and after one year. Treatments were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference (MD) in MBL was in between −0.25 and 0.25 mm. Additionally, several soft tissue parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated. Linear mixed models were fitted for each patient to assess time effects on response variables. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (21 males, 12 females; 58.2 ± 15.2 years old) with 81 implants (47 test, 34 control) were available for analysis after a mean observation period of 13.9 ± 4.5 months (3 dropouts, 3 missed appointments, and 1 missing file). The adjusted MD in MBL after one year was −0.13 mm (90% CI: −0.46–0.19; test group: −0.49; control group: −0.36; p = 0.507). CONCLUSION: Both implant systems can be considered successful after one year of observation. Concerning MBL in the presented setup, equivalence of the treatments cannot be concluded. REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00007877). Hindawi 2018-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5831983/ /pubmed/29610765 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8436437 Text en Copyright © 2018 Benedikt C. Spies et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Spies, Benedikt C.
Bateli, Maria
Ben Rahal, Ghada
Christmann, Marin
Vach, Kirstin
Kohal, Ralf-Joachim
Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
title Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
title_full Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
title_fullStr Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
title_full_unstemmed Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
title_short Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
title_sort does oral implant design affect marginal bone loss? results of a parallel-group randomized controlled equivalence trial
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831983/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29610765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8436437
work_keys_str_mv AT spiesbenediktc doesoralimplantdesignaffectmarginalbonelossresultsofaparallelgrouprandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrial
AT batelimaria doesoralimplantdesignaffectmarginalbonelossresultsofaparallelgrouprandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrial
AT benrahalghada doesoralimplantdesignaffectmarginalbonelossresultsofaparallelgrouprandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrial
AT christmannmarin doesoralimplantdesignaffectmarginalbonelossresultsofaparallelgrouprandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrial
AT vachkirstin doesoralimplantdesignaffectmarginalbonelossresultsofaparallelgrouprandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrial
AT kohalralfjoachim doesoralimplantdesignaffectmarginalbonelossresultsofaparallelgrouprandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrial