Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.1.21

Effects of implant collar design on marginal bone and soft tissue  

Yoo, Hyun-Sang (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Kang, Sun-Nyo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Yun, Mi-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Jeon, Young-Chan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.50, no.1, 2012 , pp. 21-28 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of implant collar design on marginal bone change and soft tissue response by an animal test. Materials and methods: Two types of Implant (Neobiotech Co. Seoul, Korea) that only differs in collar design were planted on two healthy Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups, the first group with a beveled collar (Bevel Group) and the second group with "S" shaped collar (Bioseal group). Standardized intraoral radiographs were used to investigate the mesio-distal change of the marginal bone. Histological analysis was done to evaluate the bucco-lingual marginal bone resorption and the soft tissue response adjacent to the implant. Mann-Whitney test was done to compare the mesio-distal marginal bone change at equivalent time for taking the radiographs and the tissue measurements between the groups. Results: Radiographic and histological analysis showed that there was no difference in marginal bone change between the two groups (P>.05). Histological analysis showed Bioseal group had more rigid connective tissue attachment than the Bevel group. There was no difference in biological width (P>.05). Bevel group showed significantly longer junctional epithelium attachment and Bioseal group showed longer connective tissue attachment (P<.05). Conclusion: For three months there were no differences in marginal bone change between the Bevel group and the Bioseal group. As for the soft tissue adjacent to the implant, Bioseal group showed longer connective tissue attachment while showing shorter junctional epithelium attachment. There were no differences in biologic width.
Keywords
Collar design; Marginal bone resorption; Biologic width; Cnnective tissue attachment; Junctional epithelium attachment; Bioseal;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kim DY, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM. Influence of platform switching on crestal bone resorption. J Korean Acad Periodontol 2008;38:135-142.   DOI
2 Lee SY, Piao CM, Koak JY, Kim SK, Kim YS, Ku Y, Rhyu IC, Han CH, Heo SJ. A 3-year prospective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around different implant systems. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:538-544.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Yun HJ, Park JC, Yun JH, Jung UW, Kim CS, Choi SH, Cho KS. A short-term clinical study of marginal bone level change around microthreaded and platform-switched implants. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2011;41:211-217.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
4 de Almeida FD, Carvalho AC, Fontes M, Pedrosa A, Costa R, Noleto JW, Mourão CF. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around internal-hex implants with switched platform: a clinical case report series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26: 587-592.
5 Baumgarten H, Cocchetto R, Testori T, Meltzer A, Porter S. A new implant design for crestal bone preservation: initial observations and case report. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005;17:735-740.
6 Korean academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Intraoral radiography. In: Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. 3rd ed. Seoul; Narae publishing; 2001. p. 70-115.
7 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;22:438-444.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:568-572.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Ohto T, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue. Part 3: A histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:425-431.
10 Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Ohto T, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue. part 4: a histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:384-390.
11 Lekholm U, Ericsson I, Adell R, Slots J. The condition of the soft tissues at tooth and fixture abutments supporting fixed bridges. A microbiological and histological study. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:558-562.   DOI
12 Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI, Lindhe J, Eriksson B, Sbordone L. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;15:39-52.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Rams TE, Roberts TW, Tatum H Jr, Keyes PH. The subgingival microbial flora associated with human dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:529-534.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971-973.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Bae EK, Chung MK, Cha IH, Han DH. Marginal tissue response to different implant neck design. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2008;46:602-609.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-549.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Hermann F, Lerner H, Palti A. Factors influencing the preservation of the periimplant marginal bone. Implant Dent 2007;16:165-175.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 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 Periodontol 1997;68:186-198.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Kim S, Oh KC, Han DH, Heo SJ, Ryu IC, Kwon JH, Han CH. Influence of transmucosal designs of three one-piece implant systems on early tissue responses: a histometric study in beagle dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:309-314.
21 Gardner DM. Platform switching as a means to achieving implant esthetics. N Y State Dent J 2005;71:34-37.
22 Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.
23 Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:581-584.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Quaresma SE, Cury PR, Sendyk WR, Sendyk C. A finite element analysis of two different dental implants: stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:1-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 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;3:104-111.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 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.   DOI
27 Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Linkow LI, Rinaldi AW, Weiss WW Jr, Smith GH. Factors influencing long-term implant success. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:64-73.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Misch CE. Stress factors: influence on treatment. In: Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St. Louis, Mosby; 2005. p. 71-90.
30 Haider R, Watzek G, Plenk H. Effects of drill cooling and bone structure on IMZ implant fixation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:83-91.
31 Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-152.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Duyck J, Rnold HJ, Van Oosterwyck H, Naert I, Vander Sloten J, Ellingsen JE. The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:207-218.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Piattelli A, Ruggeri A, Franchi M, Romasco N, Trisi P. An histologic and histomorphometric study of bone reactions to unloaded and loaded non-submerged single implants in monkeys: a pilot study. J Oral Implantol 1993;19:314-320.
34 Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Motomura Y, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue: a histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:677-683.