Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-02-14, 12:02:22 | version 1.38.0
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the implant sample. Table 2 Statistical results regarding periimplant clinical variables. Table 3 Radiographic marginal bone loss. 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 TSA TSA Advance P value (chi2) Implant diameter (mm) Implant position Arch Antagonist 3.6 4.2 5.5 Incisor Canine Premolar Molar Maxilla Mandible Natural tooth Implant 2 14 12 0 1 11 16 0 8 8 10 1 15 7 1 0 7 15 9 14 18 5 0.547 0.519 0.802 0.276 TSA TSA Advance Odds ratio P value Probing pocket depth 4.8 ± 1.4 mm 5.3 ± 0.9 mm Bleeding on probing Presence of mucositis Width of keratinized mucosa 47.1% 12.5% 60% 14.3% 1.27 1.14 3.50 ± 2.44 mm 2.70 ± 2.40 mm 0.195 0.524 0.916 0.435 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 n Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum Median Total 51 0.52 0.52 -0.22 2.10 0.39 TSA 28 0.57 0.55 0.00 2.10 0.47 TSA Advance 23 0.46 0.49 -0.22 1.61 0.25 different among the 3 groups they analyzed: The rough-surfaced microthread implant group showed less bone loss than the rough-surfaced implant group and the machined hybrid design implant group, but these implants had some differences other than the configuration of the coronal part, so these might have impacted on the results.20 Some studies have compared polished-neck implants to rough-neck implants and found sig- nificantly greater bone loss with the pol- ished-neck implants.4, 12, 13, 25, 29–32 In contrast, others have found no statistically significant differences in bone loss.20, 24, 25, 33, 34 Some stud- ies have evaluated the presence of microthreads at the coronal portion using radiographic eval- uation of the marginal bone level and found a positive effect in maintaining the marginal bone level for rough-surfaced implants with microthreads at the coronal portion after func- tional loading.1, 13, 20, 35–36 However, Van de Velde et al. observed that, after 1 year of loading, a microthread design of the implant collar did not seem to improve bone preservation in the man- dible.38 Aloy-Prósper et al. in their literature review found that marginal bone loss with pol- ished-neck implants was greater 3 months after implant placement, while bone loss with rough- neck implants with and without microthreads was greater 6 months after insertion of the implants.39 Lang et al. in a consensus report concluded that prospective controlled studies on the effects of different implant designs and surfaces demonstrated that marginal bone levels were generally well preserved after instal- lation of the dental prosthesis (at least for fixed restorations) on a variety of implant types (cumulative bone loss: < 0.5 mm after 3 years).11 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 4/2017 21