Platform switching vs standard implants in partially edentulous patients using the Dental Tech Implant System: clinical and radiological results from a prospective multicenter study

Internal hexagon versus conical implant-abutment connections: evaluation of 3-year postloading outcomes

Different types of internal implant-abutment connections, namely hexagon and conical, have been used for implant restoration. However, data regarding the benefits of these internal connections in terms of clinical outcomes are scarce. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL) and associated implant complications between implants with internal hexagon (IH) connections and those with internal conical (IC) connections. Forty-nine patients with 98 implants (two per patient) placed in the posterior mandible were recruited. All implants were inserted in pairs in solid D2 bone according to a randomized sequence; the first patient received an IH connection implant on the mesial side while the second patient received an IC connection implant on the mesial side. Each patient received one implant with an IH connection and one with an IC connection, placed side-by-side. Four months after placement, all implants were loaded with single screw-retained ceramic restorations with internal hexagon or conical connections. RMBL and complications, including implant/prosthesis failure, were recorded at the time of implant loading (baseline) and 6, 12, and 36 months after loading. The results revealed no significant between-group differences in RMBL (P = .74), gingival bleeding on probing (P = .29), and complications (P = .32). Thus, the type of internal implant-abutment connection did not affect clinical outcomes, including RMBL and implant/prosthesis failure. Future studies should additionally evaluate long-term prosthesis-related complications such as screw loosening and fracture between the two types of internal connections.

Immediate Implant Placement Into Fresh Extraction Sites Using Single-Drilling Bur and Two Loading Procedures: Follow-Up Results

Modern clinical protocols in implantology aim at shortening the treatment time and reducing duration and discomfort of the surgical phase, while maintaining optimal treatment outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of implants immediately placed in extraction sites, using a single drilling step for implant site preparation. One-hundred thirty-three patients (mean age 55.3 ± 12.7 [SD] years, range 20-83 years) were treated at 2 clinical centers. Two-hundred sixty-one implants were inserted in fresh postextraction sockets. One-hundred sixty-five implants were immediately loaded (IL) and 96 underwent delayed loading (DL). Implant survival, peri-implant bone level change and patients' satisfaction were assessed after at least 3 years of function. No patient dropout occurred. The mean follow-up was 63.61 ± 11.52 months (range 39.71-85.71 months) from prosthesis delivery. Two IL and 1 DL implant failed in 3 patients. Implant survival was 98.8% and 99% for IL and DL group, respectively. The mean marginal bone loss after 1 year was 0.48 ± 0.40 mm and 0.52 ± 0.34 mm for IL and DL group. No biological nor mechanical complications occurred. All patients demonstrated full satisfaction. The present protocol with single burs for site preparation produced satisfactory clinical outcomes independent of the loading timing. Further long-term comparative studies are needed to confirm the present findings.

Influence of interimplant distance on the crestal bone height around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Indexed publications lack a systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of interimplant distance on the interproximal crestal bone height (ICBH) around implants.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the influence of interimplant distance on ICBH around implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The question addressed was, "Does interimplant distance influence the ICBH around implants?" Indexed databases from 1978 up to April 2015 were searched by using the keywords "crestal bone level", "bone loss", "bone height", and "interimplant distance." Reference lists of potentially relevant original and review articles were searched manually to identify any unidentified studies. Articles available online in electronic form ahead of print were eligible for inclusion. Letters to the Editor, case reports, case series, commentaries, studies involving bone augmentation procedures, and studies published in languages other than English were excluded. A meta-analysis of mean differences in ICBH among study groups was also performed.

RESULTS

In total, 5 animal studies with relatively short follow-up periods (2-12 months) were included. Results from 4 studies showed no significant differences in ICBH around implants placed 1 to 3 mm apart. However, 1 of the 5 studies found that vertical bone loss was significantly lower in implants that had an interimplant distance of 5 mm than those placed at a distance of 1 mm. Platform switched and rough surface implants were used in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of interimplant distance on ICBH around dental implants remains unclear.