A Retrospective Study of Implant–Abutment Connections on Crestal Bone Level

This study compared the effects of external hex, internal octagon, and internal Morse taper implant–abutment connections on the peri-implant bone level before and after the occlusal loading of dental implants. Periapical radiographs of 103 implants (63 patients) placed between 2002 and 2010 were collected, digitized, standardized, and classified into groups based on the type of implant–abutment connection. These radiographs were then analyzed with image-processing software to measure the peri-implant crestal bone change during the healing phase (4 months after implant placement) and at loading phases 1 and 2 (3 and 6 months after occlusal loading, respectively). A generalized estimating equation method was employed for statistical analysis. The amount of peri-implant crestal bone change differed significantly among all time–phase pairs for all 3 types of implant–abutment connection, being greater in the healing phase than in loading phase 1 or 2. However, the peri-implant crestal bone change did not differ significantly among the 3 types of implant–abutment connections during the healing phase, loading phase 1, or loading phase 2. This retrospective clinical study reveals that the design of the implant–abutment connection appears to have no significant impact on short-term peri-implant crestal bone change.

[1]  H. Schaaf,et al.  Non-linear 3D Evaluation of Different Oral Implant-Abutment Connections , 2012, Journal of dental research.

[2]  Tae-Il Kim,et al.  The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. , 2012, Journal of periodontology.

[3]  R. Mericske-Stern,et al.  Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone levels: a randomized clinical trial. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  R. Nishioka,et al.  Comparative Strain Gauge Analysis of External and Internal Hexagon, Morse Taper, and Influence of Straight and Offset Implant Configuration , 2011, Implant dentistry.

[5]  N. Lang,et al.  Influence of various implant platform configurations on peri-implant tissue dimensions: an experimental study in dog. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Nikolaos Parissis,et al.  Evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss using modified abutment connections at various crestal level placements. , 2010, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[7]  I. Abrahamsson,et al.  Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a review. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  J. Sloten,et al.  Influence of implant connection type on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants - CT-based nonlinear, three-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[9]  E. Richter,et al.  Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  J. Cirelli,et al.  Biologic width changes around loaded implants inserted in different levels in relation to crestal bone: histometric evaluation in canine mandible. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  F. Isidor,et al.  Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. , 2006, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  Richard J Lazzara,et al.  Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. , 2006, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[13]  James Laney Williams,et al.  Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  K. Gröndahl,et al.  Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  Urs C Belser,et al.  Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: a 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients. , 2002, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

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

[17]  K. Gröndahl,et al.  Marginal bone reaction to oral implants: a prospective comparative study of Astra Tech and Brånemark System implants. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[18]  H P Weber,et al.  Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  D. Cochran,et al.  Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[20]  S Winkler,et al.  Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. , 2000, Annals of periodontology.

[21]  A. N. Cranin,et al.  Evaluation of the Periotest as a diagnostic tool for dental implants. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[22]  S J Sadowsky,et al.  The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  C. Malevez,et al.  Marginal bone levels at Brånemark system implants used for single tooth restoration. The influence of implant design and anatomical region. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[26]  Heng-Li Huang,et al.  Influences of internal tapered abutment designs on bone stresses around a dental implant: three-dimensional finite element method with statistical evaluation. , 2012, Journal of periodontology.

[27]  T. Linkevicius,et al.  Biologic width around implants. An evidence-based review. , 2008, Stomatologija.

[28]  M Sogo,et al.  In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. , 2006, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[29]  P. Apse,et al.  Dental Implant Design and Biological Effects on Bone-Implant Interface , 2004 .

[30]  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.