Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2015-03-04, 10:43:31 | version 1.33.01
research I I 21implants1_2015 Tab. 3_Marginal bone level (cross-sectional observations) and longitudinal bone loss around GC Aadva implants. probably closer to clinical reality. Clinical studies in anacademicsettingareoftenverystrictlymanaged, with stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria and strictpatientfollow-up.Allthesefactors,whichcan only improve the results, were not present in this study. The new implant performed well in various situations, from a single tooth implant to full-fixed dental restorations in all tooth positions and in different bone types. No significant changes were observed in the survival rate between treatment options (immediate placement, GBR, etc.). The sur- vival rate (98.5% after 3.5 years) is within or better than the survival rates reported in clinical studies until now.26, 27 In the current study, only 5 out of 399implantswerelost,probablyduetoinsufficient primary stability. These findings can further be supported with data from an in-vitro study in pigs by Joke Duyck's group, comparing the osseointegration process between the GC Aadva and Osseospeed Astra Tech implants. After 1 and 3 months, only very limited differences were observed in many parameters such as bone-to- implantcontact,marginalbonelevel,etc.28 Clinicalobservationsshowedalmostnosofttissue recession, as illustrated in a case (Fig. 3). It is assumed that this is due to the favourable crestal bone height andtheinternalconnection(platformswitching). _Conclusion The recently introduced implant design showed stable bone and soft tissue levels. This is a promising result, but a long-term study is required to confirm theseinitialveryfavourableresults._ Editorial note: A list of references is available from the pub- lisher. contact Marc Quirynen Department of Periodontology Faculty of Medicine,Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Kapucijnenvoer 33,B-3000 Leuven,Belgium marc.quirynen@med.kuleuven.be Marginal bone level at a specific observation time (cross sectional data) Time Number of Implants Average bone level S.D. Placement 225 0.46 0.46 Loading 170 0.67 0.64 After 1 year 167 0.88 0.66 After 2 years 156 1.26 0.80 After 3 years 115 1.26 0.73 Marginal bone loss (longitudinal observations) Interval Number of Implants Average bone level S.D. Placement – 1 y in use 129 0.47 0.61 Placement – 2 y in use 103 0.75 0.84 Placement – 3 y in use 81 0.80 0.75 Placement – loading 113 0.40 0.72 Loading – 1 y in use 75 0.27 0.52 Loading – 2 y in use 62 0.65 0.69 Loading – 3 y in use 51 0.57 0.47 Placement 2250.460.46 Loading 1700.670.64 After 1 year 1670.880.66 After 2 years 1561.260.80 After 3 years 1151.260.73 Placement – 1 y in use 1290.470.61 Placement – 2 y in use 1030.750.84 Placement – 3 y in use 810.800.75 Placement – loading 1130.400.72 Loading – 1 y in use 750.270.52 Loading – 2 y in use 620.650.69 Loading – 3 y in use 510.570.47