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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Montemezzi, Pietro, Ferrini, Francesco, Pantaleo, Giuseppe, Gherlone, Enrico, Capparè, Paolo
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