Abstract
BackgroundThe objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. Material and MethodsCases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients’ medical records. Statistical method: Spearman’s correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman’s post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05. ResultsNo significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05). ConclusionsWith the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson’s index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs.
Highlights
Introduction all measurements and compare themThe evaluator calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.925, which implies a coincidence percentage higher than 90%.-Inclusion and exclusion criteria: The patients included in this study had implants (3.3 or4.1 mm) placed in either the anterior or posterior region of the mandible and maxilla.The patients excluded in this study were treated with8-mm or smaller implants, whose implants were loaded for less than 2 years, with more than two years of follow-up but no radiography at 2 years, patients taking medication that affects bone metabolism, patients with inflammatory bone diseases or genetic diseases, patients with active periodontal disease
-Studied variables: In the present study, bone loss (BL) was measured using Lagervall & Jansson’s index [12] modified by Corcuera Flores et al [8] to add a fifth category, using panoramic radiographs of each patient to compare the panoramic images taken after implant loading with the ones taken two years later
No significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implants loading
Summary
Introduction all measurements and compare themThe evaluator calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.925, which implies a coincidence percentage higher than 90%.-Inclusion and exclusion criteria: The patients included in this study had implants (3.3 or4.1 mm) placed in either the anterior or posterior region of the mandible and maxilla.The patients excluded in this study were treated with8-mm or smaller implants, whose implants were loaded for less than 2 years, with more than two years of follow-up but no radiography at 2 years (the initial total number of patients with narrow implants was 22, but the final number of patients studied is 20), patients taking medication that affects bone metabolism (corticosteroids, bisphosphonates), patients with inflammatory bone diseases or genetic diseases, patients with active periodontal disease (must be under control after 6 months of periodontal treatment). -Studied variables: In the present study, BL (main variable) was measured (each implant was assigned to a category) using Lagervall & Jansson’s index [12] modified by Corcuera Flores et al [8] to add a fifth category, using panoramic radiographs of each patient to compare the panoramic images taken after implant loading with the ones taken two years later. The variables tobacco smoking, age and gender were collected from the medical records of patients enrolled in the study. The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
