We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 7 (2014), No. 1     21. Mar. 2014
Eur J Oral Implantol 7 (2014), No. 1  (21.03.2014)

Page 47-61, PubMed:24892113


Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles
Pozzi, Alessandro / Tallarico, Marco / Moy, Peter K.
Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two implant designs with different prosthetic interfaces and neck configurations.
Materials and methods: Thirty-four partially edentate patients randomly received at least one NobelActive implant (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) with back-tapered collar, internal conical connection and platform shifting design, and one NobelSpeedy implant (Nobel Biocare) with external hexagon and flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface according to a split-mouth design. Follow-up continued to 3 years post-loading. The primary outcome measures were the success rates of the implants and prostheses, and the occurrence of any surgical and prosthetic complications during the entire follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were: horizontal and vertical peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) changes, resonance frequency analysis values at implant placement and loading (4 months), sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and plaque score (PS).
Results: No drop-out occurred. No implants and prostheses failures were observed to the 3-year follow-up. MBL changes were statistically significant different with better results for the NobelActive implants for both horizontal and vertical measurements (P = 0.000). After 3 years post-loading, the NobelActive implants underwent a mean vertical bone resorption of 0.66 mm, compared with 1.25 mm for the NobelSpeedy Groovy implants (P = 0.000); the mean horizontal bone resorption was 0.19 mm for the NobelActive implants and 0.60 mm for the NobelSpeedy Groovy implants (P = 0.000). A high ISQ value was found for both implants, and no statistically significant difference was found for ISQ mean values between interventions (P = 0.941 at baseline; P = 0.454 at implantabutment connection; P = 0.120 at prosthesis delivery). All implants showed good periodontal health at the 3-year-in-function visit, with no significant differences between groups.
Conclusion: The results of this research suggest that in well-maintained patients, the MBL changes could be affected by the different implant design. After 4 months of unloaded healing, as well as after 3 years in function, both implants provided good results, however vertical and horizontal bone loss had statistically significant differences between the two groups (difference of 0.58 ± 0.10 mm for the vertical MBL, and 0.4 ± 0.05 mm for the horizontal MBL), with lower values in the Nobel Active implants, compared to the NobelSpeedy Groovy implants.

Keywords: bone level, bone loss, dental implants, platform shifting, implant-abutment interface