Premium
Comparison of clinical, radiographic and immunological parameters of teeth and different dental implant platforms
Author(s) -
Machtei Eli E.,
OvedPeleg Efrat,
Peled Micha
Publication year - 2006
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/j.1600-0501.2006.01282.x
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , dental alveolus , implant , radiography , dental implant , bleeding on probing , periodontitis , orthodontics , surgery
A comparison between host response in teeth and dental implants was not made. Likewise, the association between host response and periodontal parameters has never been explored. The purpose of this study was to compare periodontal health around natural teeth and dental implants with different restorative platforms. Twenty‐seven partially edentulous patients with dental implants, either external hex butt joint ( n =28) or tapered Morse ( n =45), were included in this study. Implants were in function for 1–6 years (mean 2.9). Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD); and clinical attachment level (CAL), were recorded at final examination; alveolar bone loss (ABL) was measured at baseline and final examination using panoramic radiographs. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were obtained from the Ramfjord index teeth and all implants and assayed using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay for prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2 ), interleukin‐1 (IL‐1) and tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα). Differences between teeth and implants and between the two implant platforms were compared using Student's t ‐test. Correlations between cytokines, ABL and clinical parameters were analyzed using Pearson's co‐efficient test. PI and GI were significantly higher in teeth than dental implants (1.2±0.5 vs. 0.8±0.5, P =0.0018; 1.2±0.3 vs. 1.1±0.3, P =0.048). Conversely, PD was deeper in implants (2.66±0.6 vs. 3.66±0.9, P =0.001). GI and PD around teeth and implants were positively associated ( R =0.561, P =0.0023; R =0.39, P =0.0452). Greater ABL was observed around dental implants (1.62±2.2 mm) compared with teeth (0.49±0.3 mm). A positive correlation was found between both IL‐1 ( R =0.73, P =0.0064; R =0.52, P =0.0081) and TNFα ( R =0.64, P =0.0246; R =0.46, P =0.091) and ABL in teeth and implants. Both implant platforms were similar clinically and radiographically; however, TNFα (2.49±0.3 vs. 4.79±0.5, P =0.004) and IL‐1 (24.52±7.3 vs. 45.41±9.9, P =0.095) were higher for the non‐submerged implants. In conclusion, IL‐1 and TNFα are sensitive markers of ABL around teeth and implants. The two dental implant platforms showed a similar clinical and radiographic response; however, the greater host response in the non‐submerged implants might suggest future bone loss.