[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
:: Volume 31, Issue 3 (7-2019) ::
J Islam Dent Assoc Iran 2019, 31(3): 162-168 Back to browse issues page
Radiographic Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss Around Two Implant Systems with Different Surface Roughness: A Retrospective Study
Hanane Pourheidary1, Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh Shayegh2, Shahriar Shahab3, Seyed Mohammad Reza Hakimaneh *4
1- Dental Student, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran , m.hakimaneh@shahed.ac.ir
Abstract:   (983 Views)
Background and Aim: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effects of surface roughness and implant body design on the amount of crestal bone loss around implant.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, dental records of 87 patients who received 139 implants were evaluated. The ITI group received 63 implants with moderate roughness, while the DIO group received 76 implants with hybrid rough-ness. Radiographs were taken immediately after implant placement, on the day of loading of the prosthesis, and 1 and 2 years after loading by using the parallel method. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare bone loss in the two groups at different time points, and the Wilcoxon test was used to evaluate the intra-group variations during a period of 1-2 years after applying the force (P=0.05).
Results: Radiographic records of 23 implants (16%) were unavailable during the sec-ond year. The ITI group had more bone loss at all three time points. Marginal bone loss in the ITI group during the second year was 0.65±0.44 mm and was significantly more than that in the DIO group (0.28±0.16 mm; P<0.05). The mean bone loss during the time interval of the first to the second year was significantly less than the bone loss during the time interval of loading to the first year (P<0.05) in both groups.
Conclusion: Based on the failure criteria, none of the implants failed after 2 years of loading. Implants with hybrid surface roughness were superior in preserving the mar-ginal bone around implants against occlusal forces.
Keywords: Dental Implants, Alveolar Bone Loss, Radiography, Dental
Full-Text [PDF 619 kb]   (273 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Porosthodontics
References
1. Misch CE, SBidez MW. A scientific rationale for dental implant design. In:misch CE, (ed.). Contemporary Implant Dentistry.3 ed. St Louis: Mosby Co.2008. p. 340-369.
2. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of current-ly used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25.
3. Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Schoolfield JD, Jones AA, Oates TW. A prospective multicenter 5-year radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels over time in 596 dental implants placed in 192 patients. J Periodontol. 2009 May; 80(5):725-33.
4. Macha D, koppolu P, Swapna LA, Bathini C. Osseointegration in Implants: A Review. J Res Adv Dent 2014;3(3):67-72.
5. Nandal S, Ghalaut P, Shekhawat H. A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: An in-vivo study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul-Dec;5(2):126-37.
6. Perrotti V, Ravera L, Ricci L, Doi K, Piattelli A, Shibli J, et al. Radiographic comparison of periimplant bone resorption and assessment of survival rates of 2 implant systems: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Implant Dent. 2015 Feb;24(1):77-82.
7. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium: Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):76-94.
8. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Nov-Dec;11(6):811-8.
9. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? Review. J Periodontol. 2002 Mar;73(3):322–33.
10. Al-Nawas B, Groetz KA, Goetz H, Duschner H, Wagner W. Comparative histomorphometry and resonance frequency analysis of implants with moderately rough surfaces in a loaded animal model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jan; 19(1):1-8.
11. Arnhart C, Dvorak G, Trefil C, Huber C, Watzek G, Zechner W. Impact of implant surface topogra-phy: a clinical study with a mean functional loading time of 85 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(9):1049-54.
12. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2006 Jun;85(6):496-500.
13. Polizzi G, Gualini F, Friberg B. A two-center ret-rospective analysis of long-term clinical and ra-diologic data of Ti Unite and turned implants placed in the same mouth. Int J Prosthodont 2013 Jul-Aug;26(4):350-8.
14. Vandeweghe S, Ferreira D, Vermeersch L, Mariën M, De Bruyn H. Long-term retrospective follow-up of turned and moderately rough implants in the edentulous jaw. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):421-6.
15. Vroom MG, Sipos P, de Lange GL, Gründemann LJ, Timmerman MF, Loos BG, et al. Effect of surface topography of screw-shaped titanium implants in humans on clinical and radiographic parameters: a 12-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Nov; 20(11):1231-9.
16. Doornewaard R, Christiaens V, De Bruyn H, Ja-cobsson M, Cosyn J, Vervaeke S, et al. Long-term effect of surface roughness and patients' factors on crestal bone loss at dental implants. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Apr;19(2):372-399.
17. Raes M, D'hondt R, Teughels W, Coucke W, Quirynen M. A 5-year randomized clinical trial comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45(6):711-720.
18. Glibert M, Matthys C, Maat RJ, De Bruyn H, Vervaeke S. A randomized controlled clinical trial assessing initial crestal bone remodeling of implants with a different surface roughness. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Oct;20(5):824-828.
19. Dagorne C, Malet J, Bizouard G, Mora F, Rangé H, Bouchard P. Clinical evaluation of two dental implant macrostructures on peri-implant bone loss: a comparative, retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(3):307-13.
20. Grandi T, Guazzi P, Samarani R, Grandi G. Clini-cal outcome and bone healing of implants placed with high insertion torque: 12-month results from a multi center controlled cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 42(4):516-20.
21. Bashutski JD, D'Silva NJ, Wang HL. Implant compression necrosis: current understanding and case report. J Periodontol. 2009 Apr; 80(4):700-4.
22. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or sur-face topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:68-81.
23. Bürgers R, Gerlach T, Hahnel S, Schwarz F, Han-del G, Gosau M. In vivo and in vitro biofilm for-mation ontwo different titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Feb;21 (2):156-64.
24. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and sub gingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Jan;22(1):1-14.
25. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. A 5-year follow-up compar-ative analysis of the efficacy of various osseoin-tegrated dental implant systems: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Jul-Aug;20(4):557-68.
26. Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U. A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface. J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar; 10(1):2-7.
27. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Jan;35(1):51-7
28. Bateli M, Att W, Strub JR. Implant neck configurations for preservation of marginal bone level: a systematic review: Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Mar-Apr; 26(2):290-303.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Pourheidary H, Shayegh S S S, Shahab S, Hakimaneh S M R. Radiographic Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss Around Two Implant Systems with Different Surface Roughness: A Retrospective Study. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. 2019; 31 (3) :162-168
URL: http://jidai.ir/article-1-2054-en.html


Volume 31, Issue 3 (7-2019) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Islamic Dental Association of Iran

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 4162