Screw-Type Collar vs. Non-Screw-Type Collar Implants—Comparison of Initial Stability, Soft Tissue Adaptation, and Early Marginal Bone Loss—A Preclinical Study in the Dog

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Implant neck characteristics may affect initial implant stability, soft tissue healing, and early marginal bone loss (EMBL) at second-stage surgery. Screw-type rough-surface collar implants had statistically significant poorer soft tissue healing and increased marginal bone loss compared to non-screw type implants at the time of 2nd-stage surgery. The significance of the novel implant design results in preventing EMBL awaits further research. ABSTRACT: Background: Implant neck characteristics may affect initial implant stability, soft tissue healing, and early marginal bone loss (EMBL) at second-stage surgery. The null hypothesis was that, following two-stage implant insertion, rough surface, non-screw-type collar implants will present lower EMBL at 2nd-stage surgery than rough-surface, screw-type collar implants. Methods: The study comprised seven male beagle dogs (mean weight 10.57 ± 2.8 kg; range 9–17 kg). A novel implant design was developed, composed of 2 parts: an apical part resembling a regular threaded implant, and a coronal non-screw-type collar, 4.2 mm long, served as the study group, whereas standard threaded implants served as control. Twenty-eight implants were placed: two on each side of the mandible. All implants were sand-blasted/acid-etched and of similar dimensions. Each dog received four implants. To assess location (anterior vs. posterior) impact on the outcomes, implants were placed as follows: group I—posterior mandible right—non-screw-type collar implants; group II—anterior mandible right—similar non-screw-type collar implants. To assess the collar-design effect on the outcomes, implants were placed as follows—Group III—anterior mandible left—control group, screw-type collar implants; Group IV—study group, posterior mandible left—non-screw-type collar implants. The following parameters were measured and recorded: insertion torque, soft tissue healing, early implant failure, and EMBL at 2nd-stage surgery. Results: No statistically significant differences were noted between groups I and II regarding all outcome parameters. At the same time, although insertion torque (55 N/cm) and early implant failure (0) were similar between groups III and IV, group III presented significantly poorer soft tissue healing (1.43 vs. 0.14) and increased marginal bone loss (0.86 vs. 0 mm). Conclusions: When a two-stage implant protocol was used, rough-surface non-screw-type collar implants led to superior outcomes at 2nd-stage surgery. Implant location did not affect the results. The significance of this result in preventing EMBL awaits further research.