Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year.

PURPOSE To evaluate the influence of macro- and microstructure of the implant surface at the marginal bone level after functional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. The first group received 35 implants with a machined neck (Ankylos); the second group, 34 implants with a rough-surfaced neck (Stage 1); and the third, 38 implants with a rough-surfaced neck with microthreads (Oneplant). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, and 12 months postloading. Two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of marginal bone change of each tested group at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups and 1-way ANOVA was also used to compare the bone loss of each time interval within the same implant group (P < .05). RESULTS At 12 months, significant differences were noted in the amount of alveolar bone loss recorded for the 3 groups (P < .05). The group with the rough-surfaced microthreaded neck had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.18 +/- 0.16 mm; the group with the rough-surfaced neck, 0.76 +/- 0.21 mm; and the group with the machined neck, 1.32 +/- 0.27 mm. In the rough-surfaced group and the rough-surfaced microthreaded group, no statistically significant changes were observed after 3 months, whereas the machined-surface group showed significant bone loss for every interval (P < .05). DISCUSSION To minimize marginal bone loss, in addition to the use of a rough surface at the marginal bone level, a macroscopic modification such as the addition of microthreads could be recommended. A rough surface and microthreads at the implant neck not only reduce crestal bone loss but also help with early biomechanical adaptation against loading in comparison to the machined neck design. CONCLUSION A rough surface with microthreads at the implant neck was the most effective design to maintain the marginal bone level against functional loading.

[1]  P. Glantz,et al.  Radiographical and histological characteristics of submerged and nonsubmerged titanium implants. An experimental study in the Labrador dog. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  Shuichi Nomura,et al.  Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Brånemark system implant components. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  G Zarb,et al.  The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. , 1986, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  M. Norton,et al.  Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. , 1998, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Hans-Joachim Wilke,et al.  The influence of various titanium surfaces on the interface shear strength between implants and bone , 1991 .

[7]  C. Han,et al.  A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  C. Misch,et al.  The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? , 2002, Journal of periodontology.

[9]  Stefano Gracis,et al.  Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. , 2005, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[10]  P I Brånemark,et al.  A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. , 1981, International journal of oral surgery.

[11]  L. Linkow,et al.  Theories and techniques of oral implantology , 1970 .

[12]  T Jemt,et al.  3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brånemark. , 1990, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[13]  R. Palmer,et al.  A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  U. Häfeli,et al.  Evaluation of postsurgical crestal bone levels adjacent to non-submerged dental implants. , 1998, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  S. Hansson,et al.  The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  F. Bosman,et al.  A three-dimensional, finite-element analysis of bone around dental implants in an edentulous human mandible. , 1993, Archives of oral biology.

[17]  T. Suetsugu,et al.  The stress distribution of the hydroxyapatite implant under the vertical load by the two-dimensional finite element method. , 1988, The Journal of oral implantology.

[18]  C. Misch.  Contemporary Implant Dentistry , 1993 .

[19]  R. Haas,et al.  Radiologic follow-up of peri-implant bone loss around machine-surfaced and rough-surfaced interforaminal implants in the mandible functionally loaded for 3 to 7 years. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.