Premium
The Effect of Internal Versus External Abutment Connection Modes on Crestal Bone Changes Around Dental Implants: A Radiographic Analysis
Author(s) -
Koo KiTae,
Lee EunJeong,
Kim JaeYoon,
Seol YangJo,
Han Jung Suk,
Kim TaeIl,
Lee Yong Moo,
Ku Young,
Wikesjö Ulf M.E.,
Rhyu InChul
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2011.110456
Subject(s) - implant , abutment , radiography , dentistry , medicine , orthodontics , connection (principal bundle) , statistical analysis , dental abutments , statistical significance , mathematics , surgery , structural engineering , geometry , engineering , statistics
Background: To the best of our knowledge, the influence of external versus internal implant–abutment connections on crestal bone remodeling has not been reported. The aim of the present study is to investigate the influence of the abutment connection on peri‐implant crestal bone levels (CBLs) using radiographic recordings. Methods: Radiographic recordings from 40 single‐tooth implants (20 external and 20 internal octagonal connections; one implant/patient) in 40 patients (15 males and 25 females; mean age: 54.3 years) were selected for analyses. The radiographic evaluation included the following: 1) linear bone change (LBC); 2) dimensional change (DC); and 3) angle between the implant and adjacent bone (AIB). Differences in LBC, DC, and AIB between implant placement and 1 year after loading for each system were evaluated using a paired t test. Comparison of LBC, DC, and AIB between systems at 1 year after loading was done using analysis of covariance. The significance level was set at P ≤0.05. Results: Radiographic CBLs (LBCs) were reduced at 1 year after loading compared to those at implant placement to reach statistical significance for the external connection ( P = 0.000) but not the internal connection ( P = 0.939). CBL changes were significantly greater for the external compared to the internal connection ( P = 0.000). Similarly, the DC for the external connection was significantly greater compared to that for the internal connection ( P = 0.004). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the implant–abutment connection technology appears to have a significant impact on peri‐implant CBLs, with the external connection paralleled by a significant reduction of CBLs.