z-logo
Premium
Influence of Implant Neck Surface and Placement Depth on Crestal Bone Changes Around Platform‐Switched Implants: A Clinical and Radiographic Study in Dogs
Author(s) -
Valles Cristina,
RodríguezCiurana Xavier,
Nart Jose,
Santos Antonio,
Galofre Marta,
Tarnow Dennis
Publication year - 2017
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.2017.170192
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , radiography , abutment , osseointegration , molar , orthodontics , collar , surgery , civil engineering , engineering , mechanical engineering
Background: The aim of this animal study is to analyze bone remodeling around platform‐switching (PS) implants with and without a machined (MACH) collar placed at different levels in relation to the crestal bone in a canine model. Methods: All mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted in five dogs. After 6 months, grit‐blasted acid‐etched (GBAE) PS implants with and without a MACH neck were randomly inserted in each hemimandible, positioning the implant‐abutment interface in either a supracrestal (+1.5 mm), equicrestal, or subcrestal (−1.5 mm) position, and healing abutments were connected. Implant abutments were dis/reconnected at 12, 14, 16, and 18 weeks after implant placement. After 6 months of healing, animals were sacrificed. Clinical parameters and periapical radiographs were registered on the day of implant placement, at 2 months, at every abutment dis/reconnection, and at sacrifice. Crestal bone changes were calculated and defined as the primary outcome variable. Results: When crestal bone changes from implant placement to 6 months were compared between MACH and GBAE groups, no significant differences were encountered except for implants placed in an equicrestal position ( P = 0.04). However, multivariable regression analysis revealed no significant differences between MACH and GBAE implants placed in a supracrestal (β = −0.08; P = 0.45), equicrestal (β = −0.05; P = 0.50), or subcrestal (β = −0.13; P = 0.19) position. Conclusion: Surface treatment of the implant neck had no significant influence on crestal bone changes around PS implants with and without a MACH collar.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom