Premium
The effect of abutment dis/reconnections on peri‐implant bone resorption: A radiologic study of platform‐switched and non‐platform‐switched implants placed in animals
Author(s) -
Rodríguez Xavier,
Vela Xavier,
Méndez Víctor,
Segalà Maribel,
CalvoGuirado Jose L.,
Tarnow Dennis P.
Publication year - 2013
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.1600-0501.2011.02317.x
Subject(s) - resorption , dentistry , bone resorption , medicine , implant , abutment , orthodontics , surgery , pathology , engineering , civil engineering
Abstract Objectives: The purpose of this animal study was to radiologically measure the influence of abutment disconnection on bone resorption and to compare this influence on platform‐switched vs. non‐platform‐switched implants. Methods: The study design included extraction of all mandibular premolars in five canines . After 2 months, six implants were placed in each dog. Four of them were platform‐switched ( PS ) implants and two were non‐platform‐switched ( NPS ) implants. Some or all of the abutments connected to the implants were disconnected at pre‐ordained post‐surgical intervals. Radiographs were taken at the time of implant placement and at every handling. The values for mesial (horizontal and vertical) and distal (horizontal and vertical) bone resorption were taken and compared for each implant at every abutment dis/reconnection. Results: The average vertical bone resorption around NPS implants after four dis/reconnections was 1.09 mm ( SD 0.25 mm), and the average horizontal bone resorption was 0.98 mm ( SD 0.27 mm). The average vertical bone resorption around PS implants after four dis/reconnections was 0.24 mm, ( SD 0.08 mm) and the average horizontal bone resorption was 0.24 mm ( SD 0.13 mm). The difference of the average horizontal and vertical bone resorption around NPS (site D) and PS (site A) implants was statically significant ( P < 0.05). The average mesial and distal bone resorption values around PS (site A) implant adjacent to a tooth were compared, and statically significant differences were found ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Implants with a PS design show less peri‐implant bone resorption during the healing process and as their abutments are disconnected, than do comparably dis/reconnected NPS implants. The location of the PS implant next to a tooth may decrease radiographically visible peri‐implant bone resorption significantly.