Evaluation of internal and external hexagon connections in immediately loaded full-arch rehabilitations: A within-person randomized split-mouth controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up.
abutment
bone resorption
connection
dental implants
Journal
Clinical implant dentistry and related research
ISSN: 1708-8208
Titre abrégé: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
revised:
30
05
2021
received:
22
03
2021
accepted:
02
06
2021
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
27
8
2021
entrez:
5
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although full-arch immediately loaded rehabilitations are widely used nowadays, little information is available on which implant/abutment connection is the most suitable in this type of treatment. The aim of the present multicentric split-mouth clinical trial was to compare the clinical outcomes of two different implant-abutment connections applied in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations: external hexagon connection (EHC) versus internal hexagon connection (IHC). Twenty patients were rehabilitated with immediately loaded fixed full-arch rehabilitations. All the implants presented the same macro- and micro-topography but different implant/abutment connection. IHC were used in one randomly selected side of the jaw and EHC in the other side. Outcome measures were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 36-month post-loading. Any technical and biological complication was recorded. Kaplan-Meier procedure and linear mixed model were used to perform statistical analysis. Forty-three EHC and 40 IHC implants were inserted. No patients dropped out and two implants failed in the first 6 months. The CSR was 97.7% for EHC and 97.5% for IHC implants. No statistically significant differences were found among the two groups for any of the parameters at any time point. At the 36-month follow-up visit a slight difference was found in MBL with a mean value of 1.7 mm in the EHC and of 1.9 mm in the IHC group (p = 0.355). No biologic complications were identified. Seven loosed abutment screws were identified in the entire follow-up period, two in the EHC, and five in the IHC group without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.394). After 36 months in function, both internal and external hexagon connections provided good clinical outcomes and were not associated with any significant difference.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although full-arch immediately loaded rehabilitations are widely used nowadays, little information is available on which implant/abutment connection is the most suitable in this type of treatment.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present multicentric split-mouth clinical trial was to compare the clinical outcomes of two different implant-abutment connections applied in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations: external hexagon connection (EHC) versus internal hexagon connection (IHC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Twenty patients were rehabilitated with immediately loaded fixed full-arch rehabilitations. All the implants presented the same macro- and micro-topography but different implant/abutment connection. IHC were used in one randomly selected side of the jaw and EHC in the other side. Outcome measures were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 36-month post-loading. Any technical and biological complication was recorded. Kaplan-Meier procedure and linear mixed model were used to perform statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty-three EHC and 40 IHC implants were inserted. No patients dropped out and two implants failed in the first 6 months. The CSR was 97.7% for EHC and 97.5% for IHC implants. No statistically significant differences were found among the two groups for any of the parameters at any time point. At the 36-month follow-up visit a slight difference was found in MBL with a mean value of 1.7 mm in the EHC and of 1.9 mm in the IHC group (p = 0.355). No biologic complications were identified. Seven loosed abutment screws were identified in the entire follow-up period, two in the EHC, and five in the IHC group without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.394).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
After 36 months in function, both internal and external hexagon connections provided good clinical outcomes and were not associated with any significant difference.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34219356
doi: 10.1111/cid.13029
pmc: PMC8457096
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
562-567Subventions
Organisme : Sweden & Martina
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Mar;121(3):398-403.e3
pubmed: 30477924
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):9-17
pubmed: 16515092
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9 Suppl 1(2):129-41
pubmed: 27314118
J Dent. 2018 Mar;70:14-22
pubmed: 29221955
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(2):161-168
pubmed: 28555206
Int J Prosthodont. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):294-302
pubmed: 21716965
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Aug;20(4):653-664
pubmed: 29761902
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021 Aug;23(4):562-567
pubmed: 34219356
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;36(5):631-42
pubmed: 27560668
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Apr;26(4):426-434
pubmed: 24665919
Int J Prosthodont. 2015 Nov-Dec;28(6):627-30
pubmed: 26523725
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:202-16
pubmed: 23062143
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jan-Feb;28(1):103-8
pubmed: 23377054
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 May;99(5):351-60
pubmed: 18456046
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Spring;7(1):47-61
pubmed: 24892113
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Oct;20(5):668-673
pubmed: 30035348
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Dec;20(6):976-982
pubmed: 30307716
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(2):133-145
pubmed: 28555204
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014 Jul;25(7):1825-30
pubmed: 24719176
Int J Prosthodont. 2014 May-Jun;27(3):207-14
pubmed: 24905260
Int J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan/Feb;32(1):27-31
pubmed: 30677109
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(2):169-179
pubmed: 31090748
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2020;13(4):355-368
pubmed: 33491367
J Periodontol. 2012 Sep;83(9):1104-9
pubmed: 22145806