Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2463-5. [Epub ahead of print]

Effect of implant macrogeometry on peri-implant healing outcomes: a randomized clinical trial.

Author information

1
Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil.
2
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Gonçalves Chaves Street 457, Pelotas, RS, 96015-560, Brazil. fernanda.faot@gmail.com.
3
Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

This randomized split-mouth clinical trial investigated the influence of implant macrogeometry on bone properties and peri-implant health parameters during the healing process.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Ninety-nine implants were placed bilaterally in posterior mandibles of 23 patients that received at least four dental implant macrogeometries: standard geometry, Integra (IN) and three geometries inducing "healing chamber": Duo (D), Compact (C), and Infra (IF). Insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were measured. Peri-implant health were monitored by visible plaque index (VPI), peri-implant inflammation (PI), and presence of calculus (CC). Data were collected during 90 days. Data were assessed for normality using the asymmetry and kurtosis coefficients followed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. A one-way ANOVA was used to investigate differences in IT and linear bone dimensions between the macrogeometry groups. The repeated measurements ANOVA test or ANOVA-R was used for analysis of ISQ, VPI, and PI. Tukey-Kramer test or Student's t test was used for comparisons between the groups or within each macrogeometry.

RESULTS:

Macrogeometry did not significantly influence IT and ISQ values. The minimum ISQ was recorded after 7 days (71.95 ± 12.04, p = 0.0001). Intermediate ISQ was found after 14 days, when the ISQ reached values that are statistically identical to primary stability. The VPI showed significantly higher scores for the D (0.88 ± 1.03) and IN (0.72 ± 0.94) implants after 7 days. The PI was only influenced by the healing time significantly decreasing from 7 (1.07 ± 0.89) to 21 days (0.18 ± 0.18).

CONCLUSION:

Implant macrogeometry did not influence IT nor ISQ values. The relationship between IT and SS was more evident for the Duo implant, but only in the final stage of healing process.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

Show to the clinician that the macrogeometry and drilling protocols did not interfere in the clinical behavior of the implants during the healing process. However, the IT, primary and secondary stability, is quite dependent of the surgeon experience.

KEYWORDS:

Alveolar bone; Dental implant; Inflammation; Periodontal healing; Pocket depth

PMID:
29725853
DOI:
10.1007/s00784-018-2463-5

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center