Effect of initial placement level and wall thickness on maintenance of the marginal bone level in implants with a conical implant-abutment interface: a 5-year retrospective study
10.5051/jpis.2019.49.3.185
- Author:
Jaehyun YOO
1
;
Ik Sang MOON
;
Jeong Ho YUN
;
Chooryung CHUNG
;
Jong Ki HUH
;
Dong Won LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, Gangnam Severance Dental Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea. periodong@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Dental implants;
Dental implant-abutment design;
Retrospective study
- MeSH:
Bone Resorption;
Dental Implant-Abutment Design;
Dental Implants;
Humans;
Prostheses and Implants;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2019;49(3):185-192
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Implant wall thickness and the height of the implant-abutment interface are known as factors that affect the distribution of stress on the marginal bone around the implant. The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of supracrestal implant placement and implant wall thickness on maintenance of the marginal bone level. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 101 patients with a single implant were divided into the following 4 groups according to the thickness of the implant wall and the initial implant placement level immediately after surgery: 0.75 mm wall thickness, epicrestal position; 0.95 mm wall thickness, epicrestal position; 0.75 mm wall thickness, supracrestal position; 0.95 mm wall thickness, supracrestal position. The marginal bone level change was assessed 1 day after implant placement, immediately after functional loading, and 1 to 5 years after prosthesis delivery. To compare the marginal bone level change, repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate the statistical significance of differences within groups and between groups over time. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated to analyze the correlation between implant placement level and bone loss. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in bone loss among the 4 groups (P<0.01) and within each group over time (P<0.01) were observed. There was no significant difference between the groups with a wall thickness of 0.75 mm and 0.95 mm. In a multiple comparison, the groups with a supracrestal placement level showed greater bone loss than the epicrestal placement groups. In addition, a significant correlation between implant placement level and marginal bone loss was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of bone resorption was significantly higher for implants with a supracrestal placement compared to those with an epicrestal placement.
