LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 35 , Issue 4
July/August 2020

Pages 841–849


Comparative Results of Single Implants With and Without Laser-Microgrooved Collar Placed and Loaded with Different Protocols: A Long-Term (7 to 10 years) Retrospective Multicenter Study

Renzo Guarnieri, MD, DDS/Luca Testarelli/Francesco Zuffetti, MD, DDS/Pio Bertani, MD, DDS/Tiziano Testori, MD, DDS


PMID: 32724939
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7605

Purpose: This nonrandomized, retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate success rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and clinical parameters around single implants with and without laser-microgrooved collars placed and loaded using different protocols after 7 to 10 years of function. Materials and Methods: A chart review was used to select patients treated at five private dental clinics with single dental implants with and without laser-microgrooved collars. Cumulative success rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss, probing depth, Plaque Index, bleeding on probing, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline examinations (ie, definitive restoration delivery) and at each year during the follow-up period. Results: Three hundred single implants (140 without laser-microgrooved collars and 160 with 1.7-mm laser-microgrooved collars) in 300 patients were selected. At the completion of the study period, 26 patients and 26 implants (17 with and 9 without a laser-microgrooved collar) were classified as “dropouts.” Implants and restorations were categorized into two subgroups each for a total of four study groups: group 1, immediate implant placement; group 2, delayed implant placement; group 3, immediate nonocclusal loading of prostheses; and group 4, delayed loading of prostheses. Nineteen implants (6.9%) failed clinically (4 [2.7%] with and 15 [11.4%] without a laser-microgrooved collar). The difference in cumulative success rates was statistically significant (P < .05). Radiographically, at the end of the follow-up period, the laser-microgrooved group showed a mean peri-implant marginal bone loss of 0.64 mm compared with 1.82 mm for the non–laser-microgrooved group. At the same time point, a mean probing depth of 0.76 mm was observed for the laser-microgrooved group compared with 2.75 mm for the non–laser-microgrooved group. A statistically significant difference in peri-implant marginal bone loss and probing depth between the two types of implant collars was evident (P < .05). No statistically significant correlation was noted between the types of implant placement/prosthetic restoration and clinical parameters. Conclusion: Implants with a laser-microgrooved collar appear to influence the peri-implant soft and hard tissue stability, reducing the probing depth levels and the peri-implant marginal bone loss by more than 50% after 10 years of function, regardless of the type of implant placement and loading protocol.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help