Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 4, 2017

P e r i i m p l a n t s o f t - t i s s u e a n d b o n e l e v e l s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i m p l a n t n e c k d e s i g n s Figs. 1a & b a b Figs. 1a & b Macrodesign of (a) TSA and (b) TSA Advance implants. S u r g i c a l p r o c e d u r e The surgery was performed under local anes- thesia with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epi- nephrine (Inibsa, Lliçà de Vall, Spain). A crestal incision was made, and a full-thickness muco- periosteal flap was raised. The drilling sequence recommended by the manufacturer was fol- lowed. Implants were placed at a torque of 35 N and positioned with the limit between rough and polished surfaces at crestal level. Suturing was carried out with 4-0 sutures (Supramid, B. Braun, Barcelona, Spain). All of the patients received postoperative treatment: 500 mg of amoxicillin (Clamoxyl, GlaxoSmithKline, Madrid, Spain) 3 times daily for 7 days, 600 mg of ibuprofen (Bexistar, Bacino, Barcelona, Spain) to be taken as needed, a 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash (GUM, Sunstar, Chicago, Ill., U.S.) twice daily for 2 weeks and brushing with a chlorhexidine toothpaste. The sutures were removed 8–10 days after surgery. D a t a c o l l e c t i o n a n d f o l l o w - u p All of the surgeries were carried out by 1 experi- enced surgeon (MPD) and control visits were per- formed by 2 trained and calibrated clinicians at prosthesis placement (T0) and at 6 and 12 months and 3 years after prosthesis placement (T1). The following variables were collected retro- spectively: sex, age, smoking habit (< 10 cigarettes/ day, 10–20 cigarettes/day, > 20 cigarettes/day), implant diameter and length, implant position (anterior, premolar or molar), arch (maxilla or mandible) and antagonist teeth (natural, implant, absent). A millimetric calibrated periodontal probe (Hawe Neos Probe 1395, Hawe, U.K.) was used to assess the following clinical variables: – probing pocket depth (PPD), measured from the gingival margin to the deepest part of the periimplant pocket, at 6 locations per implant (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolin- gual/-palatal, lingual/palatal and distolin- gual/-palatal) choosing the largest value; – bleeding on probing (BoP); – presence of mucositis, understood as inflam- mation of the periimplant mucosa without progressing to crestal bone loss;22 and – width of keratinized mucosa in the buccal and lingual region. Intraoral radiographs were used to measure marginal bone loss. Radiographic exploration was carried out using the intraoral XMind system (Groupe Satelec-Pierre Rolland, Bor- deaux, France) and the RVG intraoral digital sensor (Kodak Dental System, Atlanta, Ga., U.S.). In order to reproduce the X-ray angles in poste- rior reviews, XCP positioners were used (DENTSPLY, Des Plaines, Ill., U.S.), placing the guide bar parallel to the direction of the X-ray beam and perpendicular to the digital sensor. All of the measurements were carried out by 2 examiners (different from the surgeon), who were initially calibrated to evaluate the interex- aminer error using the Dahlberg formula and coefficient of variation. Each examiner measured 30 radiographs to evaluate the interexaminer error. The error according to Dahlberg’s test ranged between 0.63 and 0.93 mm for the var- ious parameters and the coefficient of variation between 5.2% and 6.4%. 18 Volume 3 | Issue 4/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation

Pages Overview