We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 10 (2017), No. 2     29. May 2017
Eur J Oral Implantol 10 (2017), No. 2  (29.05.2017)

Page 161-168, PubMed:28555206


A comparison of two implants with conical vs internal hex connections: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial
Cannata, Maurizio / Grandi, Tommaso / Samarani, Rawad / Svezia, Luigi / Grandi, Giovanni
Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of identical implants with conical or internal hex connections.
Methods: A total of 90 patients with partial edentulism requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups (n = 45) to receive either implants with a conical connection or implants of the same type, but with an internal hex connection at three centres. Patients were followed for 1 year after loading. Outcome measures were implant failures, any complication and marginal bone level changes.
Results: One patient (2.2%) belonging to the internal hex group dropped out. One implant (2.2%) failed in the conical group. There were no statistically significant differences in implant failures between the two groups (2.2% vs. 0%, difference 2.2; 95% CI: -1.3; 5.7; P = 0.315). Two complications occurred in the conical group and two in the internal hex group (P = 1.000, difference 0.00, 95% CI: -3.1; 3.1). The 12-month peri-implant bone resorption was similar in both groups: 0.56 ± 0.53 mm (95% CI 0.03; 1.09) in the conical group and 0.60 ± 0.62 mm (95% CI 0.02; 1.22) in the internal hex group (difference = 0.04 ± 0.55, 95% CI: -0.51; 0.59, P = 0.745).
Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, preliminary short-term data (1 year post-loading) did not show any statistical differences between the two internal connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever connection they prefer.
Conflict of interest statement: Tommaso Grandi serves as consultant for J Dental Care, Modena, Italy. This study was completely self-financed and no funding was sought or obtained, not even in the form of free materials.

Keywords: complication, dental implant, conical connection, internal hex, peri-implant marginal bone levels
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)