A Prospective Multicenter Study on Radiographic Crestal Bone Changes Around Dental Implants Placed at Crestal or Subcrestal Level: One-Year Findings.

PURPOSE To compare the peri-implant radiographic crestal bone changes around implants placed at the subcrestal or crestal level. MATERIALS AND METHODS Systemically healthy patients with at least two missing teeth requiring implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations were enrolled in the study. Implants were randomly placed either 1 mm subcrestally or at the bone crest level. Radiographic examination was performed using the long-cone parallel technique and customized film holders. Digital periapical radiographs were obtained at the time of implant placement (T0), at the time of prosthesis delivery (T1), and 12 months (T2) after prosthetic loading. Marginal bone levels were measured at the mesial and distal aspects of each implant with digital image software. RESULTS A total of 54 implants were present for the radiographic analysis at the 12-month follow-up. No implant showed mechanical or biologic complications throughout the follow-up period. The implant survival percentage was 100%. After 1 year, the mean bone loss was 0.711 ± 0.721 mm in the subcrestal group and 0.224 ± 0.418 mm in the crestal group. Furthermore, only the subcrestal group showed statistically significant radiographic bone resorption at the end of the follow-up. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study, implants placed at the crestal level showed greater peri-implant bone stability during the 1-year follow-up. Studies with larger samples and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this investigation.

[1]  G. Benic,et al.  Accuracy of periapical radiography in assessing bone level in implants affected by peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional study. , 2016, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  C. Ghelardoni,et al.  Soft tissue and crestal bone changes around implants with platform-switched abutments placed nonsubmerged at subcrestal position: a 2-year clinical and radiographic evaluation. , 2015, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  H. Schliephake,et al.  The impact of dis-/reconnection of laser microgrooved and machined implant abutments on soft- and hard-tissue healing. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  D. Tarnow,et al.  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. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[5]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Impact of abutment material and dis-/re-connection on soft and hard tissue changes at implants with platform-switching. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[6]  M. Peñarrocha-Diago,et al.  Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching implant insertion depth: An update , 2012, Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry.

[7]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Equicrestal and subcrestal dental implants: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of nine retrieved human implants. , 2011, Journal of periodontology.

[8]  N. Lang,et al.  Periimplant diseases: where are we now?--Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. , 2011, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[9]  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.

[10]  Markus B Hürzeler,et al.  Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  B. Pjetursson,et al.  Bone dimensional variations at implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: a multilevel multivariate analysis. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  D. Cochran,et al.  A prospective multicenter 5-year radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels over time in 596 dental implants placed in 192 patients. , 2009, Journal of periodontology.

[13]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[14]  Vanessa Camila da Silva,et al.  Clinical and radiographic changes around dental implants inserted in different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different restoration protocols, in the dog model. , 2008, Journal of periodontology.

[15]  R. Jung,et al.  The influence of non-matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. , 2008, Journal of periodontology.

[16]  L. McManus,et al.  Peri-implant Inflammation Defined by the Implant-Abutment Interface , 2006, Journal of dental research.

[17]  L. Levin,et al.  Evaluation of long-term implant success. , 2005, Journal of periodontology.

[18]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Influence of the microgap in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues: a histomorphometric study in dogs. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[19]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Peri-implant tissues at submerged and non-submerged titanium implants. , 1999, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Wennström,et al.  The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.