The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

MARGINAL TISSUE RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT IMPLANT NECK DESIGN

  • Bae, Hanna-Eun-Kyong (Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Chung, Moon-Kyu (Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, In-Ho (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Han, Dong-Hoo (Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Published : 2008.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Loss of the marginal bone to the first thread have been accepted but continuous effort have been made to reduce this bone loss by varying implant design and surface texture. PURPOSE: This animal study has examined the histomorphometric variations between implants with micro-thread, micro-grooved and turned surfaced neck designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four mongrel dogs have been used the premolars removed and left to heal for three months. One of each implant systems with turned neck, micro-thread and micro-grooved were placed according to the manufacturers’protocol and left submerged for 8 and 12 weeks. These were then harvested for histological examination. RESULTS: The histologically all samples were successfully ossointegrated and active bone remodelling adjacent to implants. With the micro-grooved implants 0.40 mm and 0.26 mm of the marginal bone level changes were observed at 8 and 12 weeks respectively. The micro-threaded implants had changes of 0.79 mm and 0.56 mm at 8 and 12 weeks respectably. The turned neck designed implants had marginal bone level changes of 1.61 mm and 1.63 mm in 8 and 12 weeks specimens. A complex soft tissue arrangement could be observed against micro-threaded and micro-grooved implant surfaces. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that implants with micro-grooved had the least and the turned neck designed implants had the most changes in the marginal bone level. The textured implant surfaces affect soft tissue responses.

Keywords

References

  1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  2. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25
  3. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:567-72 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4
  4. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Linden U, Bergstrom C, van Steenberghe D. Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:639-45
  5. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-72 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x
  6. Jemt T, Pettersson P. A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment. J Dent 1993;21:203-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90127-C
  7. Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D. AICRG, Part II: Crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol 2004;30:134-43 https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2004)30<134:APICBL>2.0.CO;2
  8. de Bruyn H, Collaert B, Linden U, Bjorn AL. Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Branemark implants. A 3-year follow-up study in private dental practices. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:265-71 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x
  9. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J. Immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:31-9
  10. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  11. Khang W, Feldman S, Hawley CE, Gunsolley J. A multicenter study comparing dual acid-etched and machinedsurfaced implants in various bone qualities. J Periodontol 2001;72:1384-90 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1384
  12. Ellingsen JE, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Holme n A. Improved retention and bone-tolmplant contact with fluoride- modified titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:659-66
  13. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8
  14. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennstrom J, Lindhe J. Department of Periodontology, Goteborg University, Sweden. The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:212-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070303.x
  15. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Grondahl K, Engquist E, Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Branemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:413-20 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01028.x
  16. Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:394-405 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100506.x
  17. Frenkel SR, Simon J, Alexander H, Dennis M, Ricci JL. Osseointegration on metallic implant surfaces: effects of microgeometry and growth factor treatment. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:706-13 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10408
  18. Sennerby L, Ericson LE, Thomsen P, Lekholm U, Astrand P. Structure of the bone-titanium interface in retrieved clinical oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:103-11 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020302.x
  19. Mohammadi S, Esposito M, Hall J, Emanuelsson L, Krozer A, Thomsen P. Long-term bone response to titanium implants coated with thin radiofrequent magnetronsputtered hydroxyapatite in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:498-509
  20. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J. Immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:31-9
  21. Gotfredsen K. A 5-year prospective study of single-tooth replacements supported by the Astra Tech implant: a pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6:1-8 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00021.x
  22. Tarnow D, Elian N, Fletcher P, Froum S, Magner A, Cho SC, Salama M, Salama H, Garber DA. Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J Periodontol 2003;74:1785-8 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.12.1785
  23. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  24. Pikos MA. Block autografts for localized ridge augmentation: Part I. The posterior maxilla. Implant Dent 1999;8:279-85 https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199903000-00009
  25. Woo I, Le BT. Maxillary sinus floor elevation: review of anatomy and two techniques. Implant Dent 2004;13:28-32 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ID.0000116369.66716.12
  26. McAllister BS. Histologic and radiographic evidence of vertical ridge augmentation utilizing distraction osteogenesis: 10 consecutively placed distractors. J Periodontol 2001;72:1767-79 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.12.1767
  27. Mazzonetto R, Serra E, Silva FM, Ribeiro Torezan JF. Clinical assessment of 40 patients subjected to alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Implant Dent 2005;14:149-53 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000165026.11781.f4
  28. Schwartz-Arad D, Levin L, Ashkenazi M. Treatment options of untreatable traumatized anterior maxillary teeth for future use of dental implantation. Implant Dent 2004;13:11-9 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ID.0000116367.53563.19
  29. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:251-62 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x
  30. Astrand P, Engquist B, Anzen B, Bergendal T, Hallman M, Karlsson U, Kvint S, Lysell L, Rundcrantz T. Nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4:115-27 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00161.x
  31. Engquist B, Astrand P, Anzen B, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H, Karlsson U, Nord PG, Sahlholm S, Svardstr om P. Simplified methods of implant treatment in the edentulous lower jaw. A controlled prospective study. Part I: one-stage versus two-stage surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4:93-103 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00158.x
  32. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104-11 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  33. Wiskott HW, Belser UC. Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:429-44 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100601.x
  34. Hansson S, Werke M. The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 2003;36:1247-58 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00164-7
  35. Ricci JL, Charvet J, Frenkel R, Chang P, Nadkarni P, Turner J, Alexander H. Bone response to laser microtextured surfaces. In: Bone Engineering, edited by JE Davies, Em2 Inc., Toronto, Ont. Canada, Chapter 25, pp 282-94, 2000
  36. Buser D, Weber HP, Donath K, Fiorellini JP, Paquette DW, Williams RC. Soft tissue reactions to non-submerged unloaded titanium implants in beagle dogs. J Periodontol 1992;63:225-35 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.3.225
  37. Abrahamsson I, Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T, Linder E, Wennerberg A, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment to titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:448-55 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2002.290510.x
  38. Chehroudi B, Gould TR, Brunette DM. Titanium-coated micromachined grooves of different dimensions affect epithelial and connective-tissue cells differently in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res 1990;24:1203-19 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820240906
  39. Kim H, Murakami H, Chehroudi B, Textor M, Brunette DM. Effects of surface topography on the connective tissue attachment to subcutaneous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:354-65
  40. Albrektsson T. Is surgical skill more important for clinical success than changes in implant hardware? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:174-5

Cited by

  1. Effects of implant collar design on marginal bone and soft tissue vol.50, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.1.21
  2. Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.2016, pp.None, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4987526
  3. The influence of laser-microgrooved implant and abutment surfaces on mean crestal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue healing: a 3-year longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial vol.7, pp.1, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00382-3