A 3-year prospective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around different implant systems
Summary The aim of this study was to evaluate the change of marginal bone level radiographically around three different implant systems after 3 years in function. Fifty‐four patients were included and randomly assigned to three treatment groups of rough‐surface implants (TiUnite, n = 37), hybrid of...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 37; no. 7; pp. 538 - 544 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford, UK
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.07.2010
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Summary The aim of this study was to evaluate the change of marginal bone level radiographically around three different implant systems after 3 years in function. Fifty‐four patients were included and randomly assigned to three treatment groups of rough‐surface implants (TiUnite, n = 37), hybrid of smooth and rough‐surface implants (Restore, n = 38) and rough surface with microthread implants (Hexplant, n = 45). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at the time of implant loading (baseline), 1 and 3 years after loading. A three‐level mixed‐effect analysis of covariance (ancova) was used to test the significance of the mean marginal bone change of the three implant groups. A total 120 of 135 implants completed the study. None of the implants failed to integrate. Significant differences were noted in the marginal bone loss recorded for the three groups (P < 0·0001). At 3 years, the rough surface with microthread implants had a mean crestal bone loss of 0·59 ± 0·30 mm; the rough‐surface implants, 0·95 ± 0·27 mm; and the hybrid surface implants, 1·05 ± 0·34 mm. Within the limitations of this study, rough‐surface implants with microthread at the coronal part might have a long‐term positive effect in maintaining the marginal bone level against functional loading in comparison with implants without these two features. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:755E5A532DF6D5E8FBA50364DB8F23D157AE62EA ArticleID:JOOR2083 ark:/67375/WNG-26RX725G-P ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-News-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Feature-1 |
ISSN: | 0305-182X 1365-2842 |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02083.x |