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