The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 4     20. Aug. 2015
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 4  (20.08.2015)

Page 900-908, doi:10.11607/jomi.4040, PubMed:26252042


The Effect of Interimplant Distance on Peri-implant Bone and Soft Tissue Dimensional Changes: A Nonrandomized, Prospective, 2-Year Follow-up Study
Koutouzis, Theofilos / Neiva, Rodrigo / Lipton, David / Lundgren, Tord
Purpose: To prospectively evaluate peri-implant bone and soft tissue dimension changes around adjacent implants placed at different horizontal interimplant distances.
Materials and Methods: Thirty partially edentulous patients, who underwent rehabilitation with two adjacent implant-supported crowns as part of their treatment plan, were assigned to three groups based on their prosthetic needs. Patients in group A (10 patients, 20 implants) were to have two implants placed at a 2-mm interimplant distance, patients in group B (10 patients, 20 implants) were to have two implants placed at a 3-mm interimplant distance, and patients in group C (10 patients, 20 implants) were to have two implants placed at an interimplant distance of > 4 mm according to their prosthetic needs. All patients received single-crown restorations after 3 months. Clinical examinations were performed at the time of crown placement (T3), and 6 months (T6), 12 months (T12), and 24 months (T24) after implant placement. Peri-implant bone levels were assessed radiographically at the time of implant placement (T0), and at T3, T12, and T24.
Results: One patient from group C did not return for follow-up examinations after implant placement. The mean (± standard deviation) horizontal interimplant distance was 1.97 ± 0.44 mm for implants in group A, 3.12 ± 0.15 mm for implants in group B, and 5.3 ± 0.64 mm for implants in group C. For group A, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.29 ± 0.51 mm at the T0-T3 interval, 0.31 ± 0.36 mm at the T0-T12 interval, and 0.27 ± 0.33 mm at the T0-T24 interval. For group B, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.16 ± 0.29 mm at the T0-T3 interval, 0.20 ± 0.28 mm at the T0-T12 interval, and 0.23 ± 0.28 mm at the T0-T24 interval. For group C, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.51 ± 0.84 mm at the T0-T3 interval, 0.45 ± 0.72 mm at the T0-T12 interval, and 0.44 ± 0.74 mm at the T0-T24 interval. For group A, the mean midproximal bone loss was 0.33 ± 0.50 mm at the T0-T3 interval, 0.45 ± 0.35 mm at the T0-T12 interval, and 0.40 ± 0.32 mm at the T0-T24 interval. For group B, the mean midproximal loss was 0.31 ± 0.37 mm at the T0-T3 interval, 0.32 ± 0.39 mm at the T0-T12 interval, and 0.33 ± 0.42 mm at the T0-T24 interval. For group C, the mean midproximal bone loss was 0.40 ± 0.44 mm at the T0-T3 interval and 0.41 ± 0.50 mm at both the T0-T12 and T0-T24 intervals. There were no statistically significant differences in marginal and midproximal bone crest loss between the different groups at any time point.
Conclusion: The study failed to support the hypothesis that horizontal interimplant distance has an effect on peri-implant bone and soft tissue dimension changes for implants with internal conical implant-abutment interface connection and platform-switching characteristics.

Keywords: bone loss, clinical, dental implants, prospective, radiology
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)