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



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 5     29. Oct. 2019
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 5  (29.10.2019)

Page 1184-1194, doi:10.11607/jomi.7399, PubMed:30934033

Marginal Bone Response of Submerged and Nonsubmerged Osteoconductive Alkali-Etched Implants in Thick and Thin Biotypes: A 2-year Clinical Follow-up Study
Novák, Zdenĕk / Strnad, Jakub / Nesvadba, Radim / Kamprle, Jan / Strnad, Zdenĕk
Purpose: This follow-up study evaluated the implant success rate and marginal bone response of submerged and nonsubmerged osteoconductive two-piece implants with a moderately rough implant neck in thick and thin gingival biotypes.
Materials and Methods: The stability of the hard tissue surrounding the implants was evaluated, based on clinical and radiographic examinations performed after implant placement and every follow-up thereafter. The clinical data were processed via linear mixed-effects model statistics at the patient level.
Results: Forty-three edentulous and partially edentulous patients were treated with a total of 97 implants with an osteoconductive surface. After 2 years in function, all the implants and dental prostheses reached a 100% success rate according to predefined criteria. Taking implantation as a baseline, the mean change in the marginal bone level (ΔMBLp) after 2 years in function was −0.36 mm (SD: 0.55), and bone resorption higher than 1 mm and less than 2.5 mm was observed for seven implants. Taking dental prosthesis placement as a baseline, the ΔMBLp after 2 years of loading was −0.13 mm (SD: 0.39), and bone resorption higher than 1 mm and less than 2.0 mm was observed only for two implants. Statistically significant differences in mean marginal bone loss were observed in the gingival biotype (P = .006) and submersion (P < .05). Their influence on the dynamics of peri-implant bone loss during the process of biologic width restoration was analyzed.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated the high stability of peri-implant hard tissue and the 100% success rate of the implant system with a moderately rough neck. The biotype and implant submersion were evaluated as factors having a significant influence on marginal bone loss.

Keywords: biotype, dental implants, insertion depth, osteoconductive surface, peri-implant bone loss