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 35 (2020), No. 4     30. July 2020
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 4  (30.07.2020)

Page 841-849, doi:10.11607/jomi.7605, PubMed:32724939

Comparative Results of Single Implants With and Without Laser-Microgrooved Collar Placed and Loaded with Different Protocols: A Long-Term (7 to 10 years) Retrospective Multicenter Study
Guarnieri, Renzo / Testarelli, Luca / Zuffetti, Francesco / Bertani, Pio / Testori, Tiziano
Purpose: This nonrandomized, retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate success rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and clinical parameters around single implants with and without laser-microgrooved collars placed and loaded using different protocols after 7 to 10 years of function.
Materials and Methods: A chart review was used to select patients treated at five private dental clinics with single dental implants with and without laser-microgrooved collars. Cumulative success rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss, probing depth, Plaque Index, bleeding on probing, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline examinations (ie, definitive restoration delivery) and at each year during the follow-up period.
Results: Three hundred single implants (140 without laser-microgrooved collars and 160 with 1.7-mm laser-microgrooved collars) in 300 patients were selected. At the completion of the study period, 26 patients and 26 implants (17 with and 9 without a laser-microgrooved collar) were classified as "dropouts." Implants and restorations were categorized into two subgroups each for a total of four study groups: group 1, immediate implant placement; group 2, delayed implant placement; group 3, immediate nonocclusal loading of prostheses; and group 4, delayed loading of prostheses. Nineteen implants (6.9%) failed clinically (4 [2.7%] with and 15 [11.4%] without a laser-microgrooved collar). The difference in cumulative success rates was statistically significant (P < .05). Radiographically, at the end of the follow-up period, the laser-microgrooved group showed a mean peri-implant marginal bone loss of 0.64 mm compared with 1.82 mm for the non–laser-microgrooved group. At the same time point, a mean probing depth of 0.76 mm was observed for the lasermicrogrooved group compared with 2.75 mm for the non–laser-microgrooved group. A statistically significant difference in peri-implant marginal bone loss and probing depth between the two types of implant collars was evident (P < .05). No statistically significant correlation was noted between the types of implant placement/prosthetic restoration and clinical parameters.
Conclusion: Implants with a laser-microgrooved collar appear to influence the peri-implant soft and hard tissue stability, reducing the probing depth levels and the peri-implant marginal bone loss by more than 50% after 10 years of function, regardless of the type of implant placement and loading protocol.

Keywords: delayed loading, delayed placement, immediate non-occlusal loading, immediate placement, laser-microgrooved