Browse > Article

The influence of Collar design on peri-implant marginal bone tissue  

Kim, Jee-Hwan (Department of Prosthetics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Jung, Moon-Kyou (Department of Prosthetics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Moon, Hong-Suk (Department of Prosthetics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Han, Dong-Hoo (Department of Prosthetics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.46, no.1, 2008 , pp. 53-64 More about this Journal
Abstract
Statement of problem: Peri-implant marginal bone loss is an important factor that affects the success of implants in esthetics and function. Various efforts have been made to reduce this bone loss by improving implant design and surface texture. Previous studies have shown that early marginal bone loss is affected by implant neck designs. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of laser microtexturing of implant collar on peri-implant marginal bone loss. Materials and methods: Radiographical marginal bone loss was examined in patients treated with implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Marginal bone level was examined with 101 implant fixtures installed in 53 patients at three periods(at the time of implantation, prosthetic treatment and 6-month after loading). Four types of implants were examined. The differences of bone loss between implants(ITI standard) with enough biologic width and implants(ITI esthetic plus, Silhouette IC, Silhouette IC Laser-$Lok^{TM}$) with insufficient biologic width have been compared. Resorption angles were examined at the time of prosthetic delivery and 6-month after loading. Results and Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, the following results were drawn. 1. The marginal bone loss of ITI standard and Silhouette IC Laser-$Lok^{TM}$ was less than that of ITI esthetic plus and Silhouette IC(P<0.05). The marginal bone loss between ITI standard and Silhouette IC Laser-$Lok^{TM}$ had no significant statistical difference(P>0.05). There was no significant statistical difference between marginal bone loss of ITI esthetic plus and Silhouette IC(P>0.05). 2. There was no significant difference in marginal bone loss between maxilla and mandible(P>0.05). 3. There was no significant difference in resorption angle among four types of implants(P>0.05). The marginal bone of implants with supracrestal collar design of less than that of biologic width had resorbed more than those with sufficient collar length. The roughness and laser microtexturing of implant neck seem to affect these results. If an implant with collar length of biologic width, exposure of fixture is a possible complication especially in the anterior regions of dentition that demand high esthetics. Short smooth neck implant are often recommended in these areas which may lack the distance between microgap and the marginal bone level. In these cases, the preservation of marginal bone must be put into consideration. From the result of this study, it may be concluded that laser microtexturing of implant neck is helpful in the preservation of marginal bone.
Keywords
Dental implant; Laser microtexturing; Biologic width; Marginal bone loss; Crestal module;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants, Crestal bone change around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J of Periodontol 2000;71:1412-1424   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J of Periodontol 1997;68:186-198   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the peri-implant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J of Clin periodontol 1996;23:971-983   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Kim H, Murakami H, Cheroudi B. Effects of surface topography on the connective tissue attachment to subcutaneous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:354-365
5 Keller JC, Schneider GB, Stanford CM, Kellogg B. Effect of implant microtopography on osteoblast cell attachment. Implant Dent 2003;12:175-181   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
6 Abrahamsson I. Tord berglundh Tissue characteristics at microthreaded implants: An Experimental study in dogs. Clin Imp Den Rrelated Res 2006;8:3:107-113
7 Dalton BA, Walboomers XF, Dziegielewski M, Evans MD, Taylor S, Jansen JA, Steele JG. Modulation of epithelial tissue and cell migration by microgrooves. J Biomed Mater Res 2001;56:195-207   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Quirynen M, Duyck J, Steenberghe D, Reinhilde J. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism part 2: A longitudinal radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Impl Res 2002;13:390-395   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Norton MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:91-99   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. The long term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Quintessence 1986;1:11-25
11 Bae HEK, Han DH. The influence of different neck design on Marginal bone tissue in dogs. Master's thesis The graduate school Yonsei University department of dental science Seoul 2006
12 Cardaropoli G, Lekholm U. Tissue alterations ant implantsupported single-tooth replacements: A 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006;17:165-171   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark P. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416   DOI
14 Wennstrom J, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Implant-supported single-tooth restorations. A 5- year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32:567-574   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog(II). Clinical Oral Implants Research 2001;12:196-201   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Brunette DM, Kenner GS, Grooved titanium surfaces orient growth and migration of cells from human gingival explants. J Dent Res 1983;62:10:1045-1048
17 Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Impl Res 1999;10:394-405   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J of Periodontol 2002;73:322-33   DOI   ScienceOn
19 McKinney RV, Steflik DE, Koth DL. The biological response to the single crystal sapphire endosteal dental implant. Scanning electron microscopic observations. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:372-379   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Kohler CA, Ramfjord SP. Heaing of gingival mucoperiosteal flaps. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology 1960;13:89-103   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Gargiulo A, Wentz F, Orban B. Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J of Periodontol 1961;32:261-268   DOI
22 Alomrani A, Hermann JS, Jones A, Buser D, Schoolfield J, Cochran DL. The effect of a machined collar on coronal hard tissue around titanium implants: A radiographic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:677-686
23 Cheroudi B, Mcdonnell D, Brunette DM. The effects of micromachined surfaces on formation of bonelike tissue on subcutaneous implants as assessed by radiography and computer image processing. J of Biomed Mater Res 1997;34:279-290   DOI   ScienceOn