Rubens Spin-Neto

Bone Remodeling Around Implants with External Hexagon and Morse-Taper Connections: A Randomized, Controlled, Split-Mouth, Clinical Trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  • Roberto S Pessoa, CPBio – Research Center for Biomechanics, Biomaterials and Cell Biology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia,Brazil, Biomechanical Section, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Brasilien
  • Ravel M Sousa, Department of Fixed Prostheses, Occlusion and Dental Materials,School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Brazil, Brasilien
  • Leandro M Pereira, Department of Fixed Prostheses, Occlusion and Dental Materials,School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Brazil, Brasilien
  • Flavio D Neves, Department of Fixed Prostheses, Occlusion and Dental Materials,School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Brazil, Brasilien
  • Fabio J B Bezerra, CPBio – Research Center for Biomechanics, Biomaterials and Cell Biology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia,Brazil, Brasilien
  • Siegfried V N Jaecques, Biomechanical Section, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Leuven Medical Technology Centre (L-MTC), Belgien
  • Jos V Sloten, Biomechanical Section, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Leuven Medical Technology Centre (L-MTC), Belgien
  • Marc Quirynen, Periodontology section–Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Belgien
  • Wim Teughels, Periodontology section–Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Belgien
  • Rubens Spin-Neto

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical, radiographic, microbiologic, and biomechanical parameters related to bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon (EH) and Morse-taper (MT) connections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve totally edentulous patients received four custom-made implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible. Two of those implants had the same macroscopic design, but different prosthetic connections. All patients received an immediate implant-supported prosthesis. Clinical parameters (periimplant probing pocket depth (PPD), modified gingival index (mGI), and mucosal thickness (MTh)) were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. The distance between the top of the implant and the first bone-to-implant contact (IT-FBIC) was evaluated on standardized digital peri-apical radiographs acquired at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Samples of the subgingival microbiota were collected 1, 3, and 6 months after implant loading and used for the quantification of Tanerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggragatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Further, 36 computerized-tomography based finite element (FE) models were accomplished, simulating each patient under three loading conditions.

RESULTS: The evaluated clinical parameters were equal for EH and MT implants. Mean IT-FBIC was significantly different between the tested connections (1.17 ± 0.44 mm for EH, and 0.17 ± 0.54 mm for MT, considering all evaluated time periods). No significant microbiological differences could be observed between tested connections. FE analysis showed a significantly higher peak of equivalent (EQV) strain (p = 0.005) for EH (mean 3,438.65 µε) compared to MT (mean 840.98 µε) connection.

CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic periimplant bone loss depends on the implant connection type. MT connections showed less periimplant bone loss, compared to EH connections.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
ISSN1523-0899
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 29 jun. 2016

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 101023163