Comparison of marginal bone loss between internal- and external-connection dental implants in posterior areas without periodontal or peri-implant disease
10.5051/jpis.2018.48.2.103
- Author:
Dae Hyun KIM
1
;
Hyun Ju KIM
;
Sungtae KIM
;
Ki Tae KOO
;
Tae Il KIM
;
Yang Jo SEOL
;
Yong Moo LEE
;
Young KU
;
In Chul RHYU
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea. kst72@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Alveolar bone loss;
Dental implants;
Dental implant-abutment design;
Retrospective studies
- MeSH:
Alveolar Bone Loss;
Dental Implant-Abutment Design;
Dental Implants;
Dental Records;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Peri-Implantitis;
Periodontal Diseases;
Retrospective Studies;
Splints;
Tooth
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2018;48(2):103-113
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study with 4–12 years of follow-up was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) between external-connection (EC) and internal-connection (IC) dental implants in posterior areas without periodontal or peri-implant disease on the adjacent teeth or implants. Additional factors influencing MBL were also evaluated. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed using dental records and radiographic data obtained from patients who had undergone dental implant treatment in the posterior area from March 2006 to March 2007. All the implants that were included had follow-up periods of more than 4 years after loading and satisfied the implant success criteria, without any peri-implant or periodontal disease on the adjacent implants or teeth. They were divided into 2 groups: EC and IC. Subgroup comparisons were conducted according to splinting and the use of cement in the restorations. A statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test for comparisons between 2 groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for comparisons among more than 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 355 implants in 170 patients (206 EC and 149 IC) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this study. The mean MBL was 0.47 mm and 0.15 mm in the EC and IC implants, respectively, which was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Comparisons according to splinting (MBL of single implants: 0.34 mm, MBL of splinted implants: 0.31 mm, P=0.676) and cement use (MBL of cemented implants: 0.27 mm, MBL of non-cemented implants: 0.35 mm, P=0.178) showed no statistically significant differences in MBL, regardless of the implant connection type. CONCLUSIONS: IC implants showed a more favorable bone response regarding MBL in posterior areas without peri-implantitis or periodontal disease.
