Cargando…
Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up
The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7084739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32106401 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13051029 |
_version_ | 1783508791869833216 |
---|---|
author | Montemezzi, Pietro Ferrini, Francesco Pantaleo, Giuseppe Gherlone, Enrico Capparè, Paolo |
author_facet | Montemezzi, Pietro Ferrini, Francesco Pantaleo, Giuseppe Gherlone, Enrico Capparè, Paolo |
author_sort | Montemezzi, Pietro |
collection | PubMed |
description | The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t(1) = 12 vs. t(2) = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7084739 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70847392020-03-24 Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up Montemezzi, Pietro Ferrini, Francesco Pantaleo, Giuseppe Gherlone, Enrico Capparè, Paolo Materials (Basel) Article The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t(1) = 12 vs. t(2) = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars). MDPI 2020-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7084739/ /pubmed/32106401 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13051029 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Montemezzi, Pietro Ferrini, Francesco Pantaleo, Giuseppe Gherlone, Enrico Capparè, Paolo Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up |
title | Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_full | Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_fullStr | Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_full_unstemmed | Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_short | Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_sort | dental implants with different neck design: a prospective clinical comparative study with 2-year follow-up |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7084739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32106401 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13051029 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT montemezzipietro dentalimplantswithdifferentneckdesignaprospectiveclinicalcomparativestudywith2yearfollowup AT ferrinifrancesco dentalimplantswithdifferentneckdesignaprospectiveclinicalcomparativestudywith2yearfollowup AT pantaleogiuseppe dentalimplantswithdifferentneckdesignaprospectiveclinicalcomparativestudywith2yearfollowup AT gherloneenrico dentalimplantswithdifferentneckdesignaprospectiveclinicalcomparativestudywith2yearfollowup AT capparepaolo dentalimplantswithdifferentneckdesignaprospectiveclinicalcomparativestudywith2yearfollowup |