Assessment of Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Implant with Two Different Connections Con iguration: A Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to compare two different implant designs having different neck configuration and neck interfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups, each containing 25 subjects. In Group I, conical connection (CC) (Nobel Biocare) with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mangalvedhekar, Madhura, Manas, Abhigyan, Jyothirmayee, K, Richashree, Tenglikar, Pavan, Das, Abhaya Chandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Original Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9469317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36110753
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_806_21
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to compare two different implant designs having different neck configuration and neck interfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups, each containing 25 subjects. In Group I, conical connection (CC) (Nobel Biocare) with back-tapered collar dental implant and in Group II, external-hexagon (EH) (Nobel Biocare) with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface dental implant was used. Radiographic marginal bone crest level and marginal bone loss (MBL) were compared. RESULTS: A significant less MBL was seen in Group I compared to Group II recorded at different intervals of time (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CC implants with back-tapered collar exhibited less MBL as compared to EH implants with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface.

Ejemplares similares