» Articles » PMID: 35057240

Comparison Between Early Loaded Single Implants with Internal Conical Connection or Implants with Transmucosal Neck Design: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics, and Radiographic Evaluation

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Jan 21
PMID 35057240
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To evaluate the implant and prosthetic of two implants with different surfaces and neck design. Enrolled patients received bone level, 12° conical connection implants (Nobel Parallel, Nobel Biocare; NOBEL group) with anodized surface (TiUnite) and roughness of 1.35 μm, or transmucosal implant system (Prama, Sweden and Martina; PRAMA group) with convergent collar, ZIrTi surface, and roughness 1.4-1.7 μm. Both implants were made of pure grade IV titanium, with similar diameter and length, chosen according to the dentistry department availability and patient's request. After early prosthesis delivery, patients were filled for at least one year. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, physiological marginal bone remodeling, periodontal parameters and pink esthetic score (PES). Results: Fifteen patients were allocated and treated in each group. At the one-year follow-up, three patients dropped out, one in the NOBEL group and two in the PRAMA group. During the entire time of investigation, all implants survived and the prostheses were successful. No statistically significant differences were found in term of marginal bone loss, periodontal parameters, and aesthetics ( > 0.05). Conclusion: With the limitations of the present study, both implant systems showed successful clinical results. Finally, many other clinical and surgical variables may influenced marginal bone levels, implant survival, and periodontal parameters. More homogenous clinical trials with larger samples are needed to confirm these preliminary conclusions.

Citing Articles

Risk Factors for Early Implant Failure and Selection of Bone Grafting Materials for Various Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Narrative Review.

Munakata M, Kataoka Y, Yamaguchi K, Sanda M Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(2).

PMID: 38391678 PMC: 10886188. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11020192.


Tissue-Level Laser-Lok Implants Placed with a Flapless Technique: A 4-Year Clinical Study.

Spinelli A, Zamparini F, Romanos G, Gandolfi M, Prati C Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(3).

PMID: 36770298 PMC: 9919502. DOI: 10.3390/ma16031293.

References
1.
Klopfleisch R . Macrophage reaction against biomaterials in the mouse model - Phenotypes, functions and markers. Acta Biomater. 2016; 43:3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.07.003. View

2.
Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y . Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater. 2006; 23(7):844-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025. View

3.
Schupbach P, Glauser R, Rocci A, Martignoni M, Sennerby L, Lundgren A . The human bone-oxidized titanium implant interface: A light microscopic, scanning electron microscopic, back-scatter scanning electron microscopic, and energy-dispersive x-ray study of clinically retrieved dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7 Suppl 1:S36-43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00073.x. View

4.
Norton M . Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998; 9(2):91-9. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090204.x. View

5.
French D, Larjava H, Tallarico M . Retrospective Study of 1087 Anodized Implants Placed in Private Practice: Risk Indicators Associated With Implant Failure and Relationship Between Bone Levels and Soft Tissue Health. Implant Dent. 2018; 27(2):177-187. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000743. View