Cargando…

Hard and soft tissue healing around implants with a modified implant neck configuration: An experimental in vivo preclinical investigation

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the dimensions and morphology of peri‐implant tissues around a modified dental implant designed with tissue level connection and a convergent transmucosal neck, when compared with a conventional bone level implant connected to a cylindrical machined titanium abutment. MATERIAL A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palombo, David, Rahmati, Maryam, Vignoletti, Fabio, Sanz‐Esporrin, Javier, Haugen, Håvard Jostein, Sanz, Mariano
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34352137
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13812
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the dimensions and morphology of peri‐implant tissues around a modified dental implant designed with tissue level connection and a convergent transmucosal neck, when compared with a conventional bone level implant connected to a cylindrical machined titanium abutment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight experimental animals were used for this in vivo investigation, in whom 16 test and 16 control implants were placed following a random allocation sequence. The following histological outcomes at 4 and 12 weeks were evaluated: morphology of peri‐implant tissues, the soft tissue height and thickness, the horizontal and vertical bone remodeling, and the bone to implant contact (BIC). RESULTS: In both early (4 weeks) and late (12 weeks) healing times, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control implants, with respect to the overall height and thickness of the peri‐implant hard and soft tissues. There was a tendency toward a more coronal free gingival margin (I‐FGM) at the buccal aspect of test when compared to control implants (at 4 weeks, difference of 0.97 mm (p = .572) and 0.30 mm (p = 1.000) at 12 weeks). Similarly, there was a tendency toward a more coronal position of the first bone to implant contact (I‐B) at the buccal aspect of test as compared to control implants (1.08 mm (p = 0.174) at 4 weeks and 0.83 mm (p = 0.724) at 12 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Hard and soft tissue healing occurred at both implant types with no statistically significant differences. Test implants tended to present a more coronal gingival margin (FGM) and first bone to implant contact (B).