Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2024
How do the dimensions of peri-implant mucosa affect marginal bone loss in equicrestal and subcrestal position of implants? A 1-year clinical trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Quispe-López Norberto, Gómez-Polo Cristina, Zubizarreta-Macho Álvaro, Montero Javier
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: There is evidence that the apico-coronal implant position and the mucosal phenotype can affect the extent of peri-implant bone loss. This clinical trial analyzes the bone remodeling and marginal bone loss that occur around conical-connection implants placed equicrestally and subcrestally, assessing the effect of the peri-implant soft-tissue phenotype.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients received 56 implants of distinct diameters (3.5 mm Ø n = 6; 4.3 mm Ø n = 41; 5 mm Ø n = 9) in the posterior part of the maxilla or mandible. The implants were placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, depending on the initial supracrestal tissue height (STH). After 3 months of non-submerged healing, single metal-ceramic screw-retained implant-supported crowns were placed. Longitudinal measurements of STH, mucosal thickness and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) were made at the time of implant placement (T0), crown placement (T1), and after 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) of prosthetic loading. At each of these points, a radiographic evaluation of bone remodeling and marginal bone loss was also performed.
RESULTS: STH was significantly greater for implants placed >1 mm subcrestally than for those placed 1 mm subcrestally. After 12 months of follow-up, a very significant (p < 0.001) loss of KMW was observed, in addition to a marginal bone loss of 0.08 ± 0.1, 0.15 ± 0.2, and 0.14 ± 0.2 mm in the groups placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, respectively. After the multiple linear regression, marginal bone loss was found to depend primarily on KMW (β = -0.43), while also being affected by STH (β = 0.32) and implant diameter (β = -0.28).
CONCLUSIONS: Marginal bone loss may be influenced by the position with respect to the bone crest, as well as the KMW, STH, and implant diameter. However, more well-controlled studies are needed to verify these above-mentioned findings with different implant designs and connections.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients received 56 implants of distinct diameters (3.5 mm Ø n = 6; 4.3 mm Ø n = 41; 5 mm Ø n = 9) in the posterior part of the maxilla or mandible. The implants were placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, depending on the initial supracrestal tissue height (STH). After 3 months of non-submerged healing, single metal-ceramic screw-retained implant-supported crowns were placed. Longitudinal measurements of STH, mucosal thickness and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) were made at the time of implant placement (T0), crown placement (T1), and after 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) of prosthetic loading. At each of these points, a radiographic evaluation of bone remodeling and marginal bone loss was also performed.
RESULTS: STH was significantly greater for implants placed >1 mm subcrestally than for those placed 1 mm subcrestally. After 12 months of follow-up, a very significant (p < 0.001) loss of KMW was observed, in addition to a marginal bone loss of 0.08 ± 0.1, 0.15 ± 0.2, and 0.14 ± 0.2 mm in the groups placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, respectively. After the multiple linear regression, marginal bone loss was found to depend primarily on KMW (β = -0.43), while also being affected by STH (β = 0.32) and implant diameter (β = -0.28).
CONCLUSIONS: Marginal bone loss may be influenced by the position with respect to the bone crest, as well as the KMW, STH, and implant diameter. However, more well-controlled studies are needed to verify these above-mentioned findings with different implant designs and connections.