We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 4     18. July 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 4  (18.07.2017)

Page 858-863, doi:10.11607/jomi.4094, PubMed:28708919


Retrospective Evaluation of the Influence of the Collar Surface Topography on Peri-implant Bone Preservation
Mendonça, Jose Alfredo / Senna, Plinio Mendes / Francischone, Carlos Eduardo / Francischone Junior, Carlos Eduardo / de Souza Picorelli Assis, Neuza Maria / Sotto-Maior, Bruno Salles
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the collar surface topography on peri-implant marginal bone preservation.
Materials and Methods: A total of 156 patients who received at least one cylindrical implant of regular diameter with an external-hexagon platform in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were recalled to the office for a retrospective evaluation. Implantation sites and implant length information were recorded, and implants were divided according to the collar surface topography: machined (M) or rough (R) surface. Each implant was assessed by digital periapical radiography, using a sensor holder for the paralleling technique. The marginal bone remodeling was determined as the distance from the implant platform to the first bone-to-implant contact, and the known implant length was used to calibrate the images in the computer software. The follow-up measurements were compared with those obtained from the radiograph taken at the time of prosthetic loading to determine the late bone remodeling. An independent t test was used to compare data.
Results: From 138 patients who attended the recall, 242 implants (M = 126; R = 116) were evaluated with a mean follow-up period of 4.6 ± 0.9 years. Similar success rates were found in both groups (M = 95.0%; R = 95.9%). Late bone remodeling in the maxilla was not influenced by the implant collar (P = .504); however, lower marginal bone loss was observed in the R group (1.20 ± 0.52 mm) compared with the M group (1.58 ± 0.73 mm) in the mandible (P = .007).
Conclusion: Although the implant collar design did not influence the success rate of dental implants, the rough collar design reduced the late marginal bone remodeling around external-hexagon implants in the mandible. The maxilla was not benefited by the rough collar design.

Keywords: bone loss, dental implants, osseointegration, surface