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. 5     19. Sep. 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 5  (19.09.2017)

Page 1111-1115, doi:10.11607/jomi.5234, PubMed:28906507


Influence of the Diameter of Dental Implants Replacing Single Molars: 3- to 6-Year Follow-Up
Mendonça, Jose Alfredo / Senna, Plinio Mendes / Francischone, Carlos Eduardo / Francischone Junior, Carlos Eduardo / Sotto-Maior, Bruno Salles
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the implant diameter on marginal bone remodeling around dental implants replacing single molars after a follow-up period of 3 to 6 years.
Materials and Methods: Patients who received dental implants with an external hexagon platform in healed sites to support a single metal-ceramic crown in the molar region were recalled to the office. The implantation sites and implant length information were recorded, and the implants were divided according to the implant diameter: regular (RP) or wide (WP). 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. The independent t test was used to compare data.
Results: A total of 67 implants from 46 patients were evaluated with a mean follow-up period of 4.5 ± 1.0 years. The RP group comprised 36 implants from 29 patients (mean age: 58.3 ± 10.6 years), while 31 implants from 17 patients (mean age: 56.9 ± 11.5 years) were included in the WP group. The RP group presented lower survival rates (86.1%) than the WP group (100.0%). Similar marginal bone loss (P < .05) was identified for the RP and WP groups (1.35 ± 0.96 mm and 1.06 ± 0.70 mm, respectively).
Conclusion: Although wide-diameter implants exhibited lower incidence failures, the bone levels were similar after the prosthetic loading around regular- and wide-diameter implants supporting single molar crowns.

Keywords: bone loss, dental implants, osseointegration