LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 32 , Issue 4
July/August 2017

Pages 858–863


Retrospective Evaluation of the Influence of the Collar Surface Topography on Peri-implant Bone Preservation

Jose Alfredo Mendonça, DDS, MS, PhD/Plinio Mendes Senna, DDS, MS, PhD/Carlos Eduardo Francischone, DDS, MS, PhD/Carlos Eduardo Francischone Junior, DDS, MS, PhD/Neuza Maria de Souza Picorelli Assis, DDS, MS, PhD/Bruno Salles Sotto-Maior, DDS, MS, PhD


PMID: 28708919
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4094

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the collar surface topography on peri-implant marginal bone preservation. Materials and Methods: A total of 156 patients who received at least one cylindrical implant of regular diameter with an external-hexagon platform in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were recalled to the office for a retrospective evaluation. Implantation sites and implant length information were recorded, and implants were divided according to the collar surface topography: machined (M) or rough (R) surface. Each implant was assessed by digital periapical radiography, using a sensor holder for the paralleling technique. The marginal bone remodeling was determined as the distance from the implant platform to the first bone-to-implant contact, and the known implant length was used to calibrate the images in the computer software. The follow-up measurements were compared with those obtained from the radiograph taken at the time of prosthetic loading to determine the late bone remodeling. An independent t test was used to compare data. Results: From 138 patients who attended the recall, 242 implants (M = 126; R = 116) were evaluated with a mean follow-up period of 4.6 ± 0.9 years. Similar success rates were found in both groups (M = 95.0%; R = 95.9%). Late bone remodeling in the maxilla was not influenced by the implant collar (P = .504); however, lower marginal bone loss was observed in the R group (1.20 ± 0.52 mm) compared with the M group (1.58 ± 0.73 mm) in the mandible (P = .007). Conclusion: Although the implant collar design did not influence the success rate of dental implants, the rough collar design reduced the late marginal bone remodeling around external-hexagon implants in the mandible. The maxilla was not benefited by the rough collar design.


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.

 

© 2017 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