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 28 (2013), No. 2     15. Mar. 2013
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 2  (15.03.2013)

Page 550-555, doi:10.11607/jomi.2544, PubMed:23527359

Marginal Bone Levels and Soft Tissue Conditions Around Single-Tooth Implants with a Scalloped Neck Design: Results of a Prospective 3-Year Study
Khraisat, Ameen / Zembic, Anja / Jung, Ronald E. / Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
Purpose: Scalloped implants were developed to better maintain marginal bone. Therefore, this study evaluated marginal bone levels (MBLs) and soft tissue around single implants with scalloped necks in the esthetic zone prospectively over a 3-year period. MBLs were compared to those of conventional flat-platform implants at 1 and 3 years.
Materials and Methods: Patients received anterior single-tooth implants and were divided into two groups; the test group included implants with a scalloped neck design and the control group included conventional rough-surface implants with external hex. MBLs were compared radiographically at 1 and 3 years after crown insertion. For the test group, soft and hard tissue assessments were made at six different time points, beginning at abutment connection. Mesial and distal interproximal papillae and probing depths were assessed clinically. Data were analyzed with the Student t test and repeatedmeasures analysis of variance on ranks (P < .05).
Results: Twenty-four patients (17 men, 7 women) took part; each group included 12 implants. The test group had significantly more marginal bone resorption than the control group at each time point (P < .001). With respect to changes in MBL values over time, a significant difference was detected between groups mesially (P < .001) but not distally. Statistical analyses demonstrated obvious significant increases with time (P < .001) in bone resorption and mesial papilla index. A significant increase over time in probing depths was demonstrated distally (P = .003) but not mesially.
Conclusions: The scalloped implant did not stabilize interproximal bone remodeling and caused more bone loss than conventional implants. Soft tissue levels were not maintained around the scalloped implants.