The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Influence of implant-abutment connection structure on peri-implant bone level in a second molar: A 1-year randomized controlled trial

  • Kim, Jin-Cheol (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jungwon (Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Sungtae (Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Koo, Ki-Tae (Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Hae-Young (Department of Health Policy and Management, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Yeo, In-Sung Luke (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.07.12
  • Accepted : 2019.06.11
  • Published : 2019.06.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of two different implant-abutment connection structures with identical implant design on peri-implant bone level. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This clinical study was a patient-blind randomized controlled trial following the CONSORT 2010 checklists. This trial was conducted in 24 patients recruited between March 2013 and July 2015. Implants with internal friction connection were compared to those with external hex connection. One implant for each patient was installed, replacing the second molar. Implant-supported crowns were delivered at four months after implant insertion. Standardized periapical radiographs were taken at prosthesis delivery (baseline), and one year after delivery. On the radiographs, distance from implant shoulder to first bone-to-implant contact (DIB) and peri-implant area were measured, which were the primary and secondary outcome, respectively. RESULTS. Eleven external and eleven internal implants were analyzed. Mean changes of DIB from baseline to 1-year postloading were 0.59 (0.95) mm for the external and 0.01 (0.68) mm for the internal connection. Although no significant differences were found between the two groups, medium effect size was found in DIB between the connections (Cohen's d = 0.67). CONCLUSION. Considering the effect size in DIB, this study suggested the possibility of the internal friction connection structure for more effective preservation of marginal bone.

Keywords

References

  1. Lorenz J, Lerner H, Sader RA, Ghanaati S. Investigation of peri-implant tissue conditions and peri-implant tissue stability in implants placed with simultaneous augmentation procedure: a 3-year retrospective follow-up analysis of a newly developed bone level implant system. Int J Implant Dent 2017;3:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0104-4
  2. Rotundo R, Pagliaro U, Bendinelli E, Esposito M, Buti J. Long-term outcomes of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants on soft and hard tissue stability: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:123-38.
  3. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival, and failure:the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059
  4. Albrektsson T, Buser D, Sennerby L. Crestal bone loss and oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:783-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12013
  5. Roccuzzo M, De Angelis N, Bonino L, Aglietta M. Ten-year results of a three-arm prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 1: implant loss and radiographic bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:490-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01886.x
  6. Vigolo P, Gracis S, Carboncini F, Mutinelli S; AIOP (Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry) Clinical Research Group. Internal- vs external-connection single implants: A retrospective study in an italian population treated by certified prosthodontists. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:1385-96. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4618
  7. Albrektsson T, Dahlin C, Jemt T, Sennerby L, Turri A, Wennerberg A. Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:155-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12142
  8. Baffone GM, Botticelli D, Pantani F, Cardoso LC, Schweikert MT, Lang NP. Influence of various implant platform configurations on peri-implant tissue dimensions: an experimental study in dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:438-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02146.x
  9. Bateli M, Att W, Strub JR. Implant neck configurations for preservation of marginal bone level: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:290-303.
  10. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001001.x
  11. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2006;85:473-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608500515
  12. van Winkelhoff AJ, Goene RJ, Benschop C, Folmer T. Early colonization of dental implants by putative periodontal pathogens in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:511-20. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006511.x
  13. Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LG, de Melo Nishioka GN. Comparative strain gauge analysis of external and internal hexagon, Morse taper, and influence of straight and offset implant configuration. Implant Dent 2011;20:e24-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318211fce8
  14. Ugurel CS, Steiner M, Isik-Ozkol G, Kutay O, Kern M. Mechanical resistance of screwless morse taper and screw-retained implant-abutment connections. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:137-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12303
  15. 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;24:1192-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x
  16. Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Tallarico M, Barlattani A. Clinical and radiological outcomes of two implants with different prosthetic interfaces and neck configurations: randomized, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:96-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00465.x
  17. Shin YK, Han CH, Heo SJ, Kim S, Chun HJ. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:789-94.
  18. 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
  19. Lin MI, Shen YW, Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ. A retrospective study of implant-abutment connections on crestal bone level. J Dent Res 2013;92:202S-7S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513510322
  20. Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, Bidez MW. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support. Implant Dent 2005;14:108-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000165033.34294.db
  21. Shinogaya T, Bakke M, Thomsen CE, Vilmann A, Matsumoto M. Bite force and occlusal load in healthy young subjects-a methodological study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000;8:11-5.
  22. Koo KT, Lee EJ, Kim JY, Seol YJ, Han JS, Kim TI, Lee YM, Ku Y, Wikesjo UM, Rhyu IC. The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. J Periodontol 2012;83:1104-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110456
  23. Canullo L, Rosa JC, Pinto VS, Francischone CE, Gotz W. Inward-inclined implant platform for the amplified platformswitching concept: 18-month follow-up report of a prospective randomized matched-pair controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:927-34.
  24. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
  25. Cohen J. The t test for means. In: Cohen J, ed. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 20-7.
  26. Crespi R, Cappare P, Gherlone E. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels around platform-switched and non-platform-switched implants used in an immediate loading protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:920-6.
  27. Esposito M, Maghaireh H, Pistilli R, Grusovin MG, Lee ST, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Gualini F. Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016;9:129-41.
  28. De Angelis N, Nevins ML, Camelo MC, Ono Y, Campailla M, Benedicenti S. Platform switching versus conventional technique: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34:s75-9.
  29. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7:47-61.
  30. 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;20:653-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12620
  31. Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Bonfante EA, Santiago Junior JF, Pellizzer EP. Comparison of external and internal implantabutment connections for implant supported prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2018;70:14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.001
  32. Palacios-Garzon N, Mauri-Obradors E, Rosello-LLabres X, Estrugo-Devesa A, Jane-Salas E, Lopez-Lopez J. Comparison of marginal bone loss between implants with internal and external connections: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:580-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6190
  33. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-83. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1372
  34. Guerra E, Pereira C, Faria R, Jorge AO, Bottino MA, de Melo RM. The impact of conical and nonconical abutments on bacterial infiltration at the implant-abutment interface. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2016;36:825-31. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2779
  35. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:604-10. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129384
  36. Yang TC, Maeda Y. The biomechanical effect of platform switching on external- and internal-connection implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:143-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2305

Cited by

  1. A Narrative Review of the Histological and Histomorphometrical Evaluation of the Peri-Implant Bone in Loaded and Unloaded Dental Implants. A 30-Year Experience (1988–2018) vol.17, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062088
  2. Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effects of Implant Neck Wall Thickness and Abutment Screw Size: A 3D Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis vol.10, pp.10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103471
  3. Osteoimmunology drives dental implant osseointegration: A new paradigm for implant dentistry vol.57, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.01.001