Four-implant-supported overdenture treatment in the maxilla. Part I: A randomized controlled split mouth trial assessing the effect of microthreads and abutment connection type on 4 years peri-implant health.
RCT
bone loss
dental implant
implant survival
maxilla
overdenture
peri-implantitis
soft tissue
split-mouth design
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:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
revised:
18
06
2021
received:
08
04
2021
accepted:
19
07
2021
pubmed:
12
8
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
11
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
According to literature, peri-implant bone loss is minimized on implants with microthreaded neck design and internal type of abutment connection. However, most clinical studies may be biased due to confounding factors. This nonblinded RCT assessed the effect of implant neck (microthreaded vs non-microthreaded) as well as the type of abutment connection (internal conical vs external flat-to-flat) on peri-implant bone stability and peri-implant health after at least 36 months. Twenty-five patients were treated with a maxillary implant-supported bar-retained overdenture on four different implant types: internal connection with microthreads (I-MT), internal connection without microthreads (I-NMT), external connection with microthreads (E-MT), and external connection without microthreads (E-NMT). To control confounding factors, all other design features were similar. A linear mixed-model analysis or mixed-model logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effect of implant type on bone level, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque. Four out of 98 implants (4.1%) placed in 25 patients failed during provisionalization and were replaced. Mean overall bone loss after 6 months was 0.39 mm (SD 0.62, range 0.00-3.48) with limited additional bone loss of 0.04 mm (SD 0.54, range -1.80-1.63) after at least 3 years. Microthreads or connection type had no effect on the bone level, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, nor plaque. With 96% of implant survival, the maxillary overdenture supported with a bar on four implants yield a predictable outcome and the implant-abutment connection type (internal vs external) and implant neck design (microthreaded vs non-microthreaded) have no influence on peri-implant bone remodeling after initial bone remodeling nor up to 4 years of function. Peri-implant bone levels are within international success standards and peri-implant health is indicative of absence of peri-implantitis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
According to literature, peri-implant bone loss is minimized on implants with microthreaded neck design and internal type of abutment connection. However, most clinical studies may be biased due to confounding factors.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
This nonblinded RCT assessed the effect of implant neck (microthreaded vs non-microthreaded) as well as the type of abutment connection (internal conical vs external flat-to-flat) on peri-implant bone stability and peri-implant health after at least 36 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-five patients were treated with a maxillary implant-supported bar-retained overdenture on four different implant types: internal connection with microthreads (I-MT), internal connection without microthreads (I-NMT), external connection with microthreads (E-MT), and external connection without microthreads (E-NMT). To control confounding factors, all other design features were similar. A linear mixed-model analysis or mixed-model logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effect of implant type on bone level, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Four out of 98 implants (4.1%) placed in 25 patients failed during provisionalization and were replaced. Mean overall bone loss after 6 months was 0.39 mm (SD 0.62, range 0.00-3.48) with limited additional bone loss of 0.04 mm (SD 0.54, range -1.80-1.63) after at least 3 years. Microthreads or connection type had no effect on the bone level, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, nor plaque.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
With 96% of implant survival, the maxillary overdenture supported with a bar on four implants yield a predictable outcome and the implant-abutment connection type (internal vs external) and implant neck design (microthreaded vs non-microthreaded) have no influence on peri-implant bone remodeling after initial bone remodeling nor up to 4 years of function. Peri-implant bone levels are within international success standards and peri-implant health is indicative of absence of peri-implantitis.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
671-679Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002;19(1):3-4.
Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontology 2000. 2017;73(1):7-21.
Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Gironi Carnevale UA, Lanza M, Lanza A. The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(1):15-24.
Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Slot W, Slater JJ, Vissink A. A systematic review of implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous maxilla, compared to the mandible: How many implants? Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(suppl 2):S191-S201.
Schmitt CM, Nogueira-Filho G, Tenenbaum HC, et al. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(2):552-574.
Herekar MG, Patil VN, Mulani SS, Sethi M, Padhye O. The influence of thread geometry on biomechanical load transfer to bone: a finite element analysis comparing two implant thread designs. Dent Res J. 2014;11(4):489-494.
Amid R, Raoofi S, Kadkhodazadeh M, Movahhedi MR, Khademi M. Effect of microthread design of dental implants on stress and strain patterns: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Biomed Tech. 2013;58(5):457-467.
Bratu EA, Tandlich M, Shapira L. A rough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(8):827-832.
Lee SY, Koak JY, Kim SK, et al. A long-term prospective evaluation of marginal bone level change around different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(3):657-664.
Penarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernandez AJ, Alonso-Gonzalez R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martinez J, Penarrocha-Diago M. Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(11):1192-1200.
Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Schlegel KA, Nkenke E, Eitner S. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(6):550-554.
Glibert M, Vervaeke S, Jacquet W, Vermeersch K, Ostman PO, De Bruyn H. A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(4):455-462.
Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(suppl 1):S313-S318.
Lesaffre E, Philstrom B, Needleman I, Worthington H. The design and analysis of split-mouth studies: what statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med. 2009;28(28):3470-3482.
Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Four or six implants in the maxillary posterior region to support an overdenture: 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(2):169-177.
De Bruyn H, Raes S, Ostman PO, Cosyn J. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: a review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontology 2000. 2014;66(1):153-187.
Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: a 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(4):712-719.
Suarez-Lopez Del Amo F, Lin GH, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Influence of soft tissue thickness on peri-implant marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2016;87(6):690-699.
Puisys A, Linkevicius T. The influence of mucosal tissue thickening on crestal bone stability around bone-level implants. A prospective controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(2):123-129.
van Eekeren P, van Elsas P, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D. The influence of initial mucosal thickness on crestal bone change in similar macrogeometrical implants: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(2):214-218.
Vervaeke S, Collaert B, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. A 9-year prospective case series using multivariate analyses to identify predictors of early and late peri-implant bone loss. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(1):30-39.
Doornewaard R, Bruyn H, Matthys C, Bronkhorst E, Vandeweghe S, Vervaeke S. The long-term effect of adapting the vertical position of implants on peri-implant health: a 5-year intra-subject comparison in the edentulous mandible including oral health-related quality of life. J Clin Med. 2020;9(10):3320.
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Platform switch and dental implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(6):629-646.
Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Bonfante EA, Santiago Junior JF, Pellizzer EP. Comparison of external and internal implant-abutment connections for implant supported prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2018;70:14-22.
Caricasulo R, Malchiodi L, Ghensi P, Fantozzi G, Cucchi A. The influence of implant-abutment connection to peri-implant bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(4):653-664.
de Medeiros RA, Pellizzer EP, Vechiato Filho AJ, Dos Santos DM, da Silva EV, Goiato MC. Evaluation of marginal bone loss of dental implants with internal or external connections and its association with other variables: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):501-506.
Niu W, Wang P, Zhu S, Liu Z, Ji P. Marginal bone loss around dental implants with and without microthreads in the neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(1):34-40.
Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43(12):1180-1187.
Lang NP, Berglundh T, Working Group 4 of Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. Periimplant diseases: Where are we now?-consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(suppl 11):178-181.
Windael S, Vervaeke S, Wijnen L, Jacquet W, De Bruyn H, Collaert B. Ten-year follow-up of dental implants used for immediate loading in the edentulous mandible: a prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(4):515-521.