Premium
Influence of titanium base, lithium disilicate restoration and vertical soft tissue thickness on bone stability around triangular‐shaped implants: A prospective clinical trial
Author(s) -
Linkevicius Tomas,
Linkevicius Rokas,
Alkimavicius Jonas,
Linkeviciene Laura,
Andrijauskas Paulius,
Puisys Algirdas
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13263
Subject(s) - dentistry , resonance frequency analysis , implant , anterior maxilla , medicine , titanium , maxilla , soft tissue , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , orthodontics , materials science , dental implant , surgery , botany , metallurgy , biology , genus
Objective To evaluate how vertical mucosal tissue thickness affects crestal bone stability around triangular‐shaped bone‐level implants, restored with low profile titanium bases and monolithic lithium disilicate restorations. Material and methods Fifty‐five bone‐level implants of 4.3 mm diameter were evaluated in 55 patients (22 males and 34 females, mean age 48.3 ± 3.4 years) in prospective cohort study. According to vertical mucosal thickness, patients were assigned into three groups: 1 (thin, 2 mm or less), 2 (medium, 2.5 mm) and 3 (thick, 3 mm and more). Implants were placed in posterior mandible and maxilla in one‐stage approach and, after integration, were restored with single screw‐retained monolithic lithium disilicate crowns, using low gingival profile titanium bases. Radiographic examination was performed after implant placement and after 1‐year follow‐up. Crestal bone loss was registered mesially and distally, and mean value was calculated. One‐way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD tests were applied; significance was set to 0.05. Results Mean vertical tissue thickness in 1 group was 1.76 ± 0.26 mm, 2 group–2.5 mm and 3.91 ± 0.59 mm in group 3, with statistically significant difference between all groups ( p < 0.001). After 1‐year follow‐up, implants in group 1 (thin) had 1.25 ± 0.8 mm bone loss. Implants in group 2 (medium) had 0.98 ± 0.06, while implants in group 3 (thick) lost 0.43 ± 0.37 mm of crestal bone. Tukey's HSD test showed that differences between 1/3 and 2/3 were statistically significant ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.0014, respectively), while between 1 and 2 was not significant ( p = 0.310). Conclusions Significantly less bone loss occurs around triangular‐shaped bone‐level implants in thick mucosal tissues (≥3 mm), compared to medium or thin tissue biotype. Crestal bone loss did not differ between medium and thin tissues.