Cargando…

Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study

BACKGROUND: The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. MATERIAL AND METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Corcuera-Flores, José-Ramón, Pérez-Fierro, Manuel, Blanco-Carrión, Andrés, Torres-Lagares, Daniel, Castellanos-Cosano, Lizett, Machuca-Portillo, Guillermo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6969955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976048
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.56422
_version_ 1783489419140923392
author Corcuera-Flores, José-Ramón
Pérez-Fierro, Manuel
Blanco-Carrión, Andrés
Torres-Lagares, Daniel
Castellanos-Cosano, Lizett
Machuca-Portillo, Guillermo
author_facet Corcuera-Flores, José-Ramón
Pérez-Fierro, Manuel
Blanco-Carrión, Andrés
Torres-Lagares, Daniel
Castellanos-Cosano, Lizett
Machuca-Portillo, Guillermo
author_sort Corcuera-Flores, José-Ramón
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients’ medical records. Statistical method: Spearman’s correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman’s post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson’s index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6969955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69699552020-01-23 Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study Corcuera-Flores, José-Ramón Pérez-Fierro, Manuel Blanco-Carrión, Andrés Torres-Lagares, Daniel Castellanos-Cosano, Lizett Machuca-Portillo, Guillermo J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients’ medical records. Statistical method: Spearman’s correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman’s post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson’s index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs. Medicina Oral S.L. 2020-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6969955/ /pubmed/31976048 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.56422 Text en Copyright: © 2020 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
Corcuera-Flores, José-Ramón
Pérez-Fierro, Manuel
Blanco-Carrión, Andrés
Torres-Lagares, Daniel
Castellanos-Cosano, Lizett
Machuca-Portillo, Guillermo
Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study
title Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study
title_full Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study
title_fullStr Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study
title_full_unstemmed Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study
title_short Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study
title_sort bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: retrospective 2-years case-control study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6969955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976048
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.56422
work_keys_str_mv AT corcuerafloresjoseramon bonelossaroundnarrowimplantsversusstandarddiameterimplantsretrospective2yearscasecontrolstudy
AT perezfierromanuel bonelossaroundnarrowimplantsversusstandarddiameterimplantsretrospective2yearscasecontrolstudy
AT blancocarrionandres bonelossaroundnarrowimplantsversusstandarddiameterimplantsretrospective2yearscasecontrolstudy
AT torreslagaresdaniel bonelossaroundnarrowimplantsversusstandarddiameterimplantsretrospective2yearscasecontrolstudy
AT castellanoscosanolizett bonelossaroundnarrowimplantsversusstandarddiameterimplantsretrospective2yearscasecontrolstudy
AT machucaportilloguillermo bonelossaroundnarrowimplantsversusstandarddiameterimplantsretrospective2yearscasecontrolstudy